w 


^ 


i^"^ 

■J^^'- 


I 


■ 'z.-^' " 


^^yn^tn 


f  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY, 

^  Princeton,  N.  J.  /  | 

#  /^-   ^ — 4 

"S  '  :?  ^  '  i 


BX  5995  .C3  H6  18A4 
Hopkins,  John  Henry,  1792- 

1868. 

The  novelties  which  disturb 


'  m 


4k 


^        wm     ^ 


i^       .  * 


4^' 


•jjr 


<r 


V 


t 

4 
t 

* 

t 
I 


#*» 


1^ 


^ 


I 


V 


•        it 


THE 


NOVELTIES  WHICH  DISTURB  OUH  PEACE. 


A    LETTER 


adhressed  to  the 


BISHOPS,    CLERGY.    AND    LAITY 


PROTESTAxVT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 


BY  JOHN  HENRY  HOPKINS,  D.  D., 

BISHOP  OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  VERMONT. 


'  Behold  how  good  and  how  pleasant  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell  to- 
gether in  unity." — Ps.  133. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
HERMAN     HOOKER 

1844. 


[Em ereJ  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1841,  by  Herman  Hooker,  in  the 
Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  Stales  in  and  for  the  Eastern  District  of 
Pennsylvania  ] 


GiiioN,  Fairchild  &  Co.,  Printers, 
South  East  corner  of  Seventh  and  Market  Streets. 


A    LETTER,    &c 


Respected  AND  Beloved  Brethren  in  Christ: — 

The  sacred  office  of  the  Episcopate  is  confessedly  in- 
vested with  the  most  awful  responsibihty,  even  in  its  ordi- 
nary administration.  When  the  Church  is  at  peace  in 
all  her  borders,  and  her  bishops  are  only  called  upon  to 
oversee  their  respective  dioceses  in  the  regular  routine  of 
accustomed  duty, — even  then,  how  few  can  feel  that  they 
have  acquitted  themselves  of  their  solemn  trust  with  en- 
tire fidelity  !  How  ready  must  we  all  be  to  supplicate 
forgiveness  at  the  hands  of  the  great  Bishop  and  Shep- 
herd of  our  souls,  and  to  acknowledge  the  force  of  the 
apostle's  declaration,  that  the  treasure  of  the  gospel  is  in- 
deed committed  to  earthen  vessels,  that  the  excellency  of 
the  power  might  be  of  God,  and  not  of  us ! 

But  far  more  delicate  and  difficult  does  our  task  be- 
come, when  the  peace  of  the  Church  is  disturbed  by  in- 
testine agitation.  Scattered  at  distant  points  over  our 
vast  continent,  meeting  together  only  once  in  three  years, 
and  then  during  a  period  quite  too  short  for  an  intimate 
and  thorough  understanding  of  our  respective  opinions, 
we  are  deprived  of  the  power  of  mutual  consultation, 
when  those  peculiar  occasions  arise,  on  which  that  con- 
sultation would  be  most  desirable.  Meanwhile,  the  ir- 
responsible autocracy  of  the  Press  takes  hold  of  the  op- 
portunity. Error  and  novelty  gain  ground.  The  clergy 
and  the  people  choose  their  editorial  leaders  ;  and  when 
at  last,  the  sentiments  of  the  bishops  are  declared,  they 
are  merely  used  as  the  complements  of  parties  already 
formed,  and  are  praised  or  blamed,  just  as  the  prejudice 
of  pirty  may  dictate.  The  bishops,  in  theory,  are  in- 
deed, the  governors  of  the  Church.  In  2jractical  effect, 
however,  on  the  minds  of  the  majority,  the  editorial  chair 
stands  far  above  them ;  and  as  the  inconsistency,  how- 


ever  gross,  belongs  to  the  spirit  of  the  age,  I  doubt  much 
wlietlier  it  admits  of  any  effectual  remedy. 

Under  sucli  circumstances,  the  inquiry,  What  can,  and 
what  ought  to  he  done  by  each  individual  bishop,  be- 
comes a  grave  and  serious  question.  The  apostohc  pre- 
cept, 5e  not  partaker  of  other  men'' s  sins,  seems,  of  itself, 
to  require  our  public  attestation  against  error.  And  when 
we  join  to  this  the  solemn  promise  of  our  consecration  vow 
to  banish  a?id  drive  away  from  the  Church  all  erroneous 
and  strange  doctrines  contrary  to  God' s  loord;  and  both 
privately  andopenly  tocALLVFON  ANDBycovRAGEOTHERs 
to  do  the  same,  it  would  surely  be  a  false  interpretation 
that  we  could  be  justified  in  doing  nothing.  If  the  relaxed 
discipline  of  these  latter  days  allows  us  to  exercise  only 
the  common  liberty  of  speech,  our  very  silence,  in  times 
of  trouble,  becomes  reprehensible.  And  just  in  propor- 
tion to  the  doubts  and  difficulties  which  involve  our  bre- 
thren, should  be  the  force  and  distinctness  of  our  warn- 
ing voice.  Whether  men  will  hear,  or  whether  they  will 
forbear,  is  not  for  us  to  determine  ;  but  we  cannot  avoid 
the  responsibility  of  the  ultimate  evil  result,  if  we  see 
them  walking  towards  an  unsuspected  snare,  without 
earnestly  beseeching  them  to  pause  and  consider,  before 
it  be  too  late. 

I  freely  acknowledge,  however,  that  wisdom  demands 
our  utmost  care,  lest  we  create  difficulty,  by  too  hasty  an 
adoption  of  the  cry  that  the  Church  is  in  danger.  And 
I  am  by  no  means  disposed  to  sympathize  in  that  popular 
alarm,  or  to  strengthen  the  fears  of  those  who  maintain 
it.  In  one  respect,  indeed,  the  assertion  may  well  be 
granted,  for  the  Church  militant  can  never  be  free  from 
danger, until  her  warfare  is  accomplished, and  the  final  vic- 
tory is  won.  But  1  would  hope  that  the  agitation  which  now 
pervadesour  conniiunion,  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  is 
not  an  argument  oi  danger  to  the  Church,  so  much  as  it 
is  a  proof  of  her  sensitive  vitality,  and  her  zealous  love 
for  the  pure  and  unadulterated  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 
Hence  arises  our  jealousy  of  the  least  approximation  to 
error.  Hence  our  suspicions  and  our  fears,  lest  the  new 
school  of  Tractarian  theology  should  conflict  with  our 


standards  of  religious  truth.  And  hence,  following  the 
counsel  of  the  wise  son  of  Sirach,  to  take  physic  w}i.en  we 
are  well,  it  seems  our  duty  to  arise  before  the  Church  is 
i7i  danger,  attack  the  appearance  of  disorder  in  its  first 
and  lightest  symptoms,  and  thus,  so  far  as  in  us  lies, 
under  the  guidance  and  by  the  power  of  the  divine  Phy- 
sician, transmit  her  constitution,  in  health  and  vigour, 
even  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

With  these  views,  my  respected  and  beloved  brethren, 
bishops,  clergy,  and  laity,  I  beg  leave  to  address  myself 
to  you  upon  the  present  interesting  stage  of  our  ecclesias- 
tical history.  I  do  it  under  the  conviction,  that  the 
Church  has  a  right  to  know  the  sentiments  of  every 
bishop,  upon  questions  which  concern  her  principles  and 
doctrine,  especially  at  a  time  of  agitation,  which  threatens 
— may  God  avert  it ! — to  be  the  herald  of  strife.  I  do  it  in 
the  hope,  that  when  all  our  bishops  shall  have  spoken 
distinctly,  we  shall  find  this  agitation  gradually  subside. 
I  do  it  as  a  lover  of  peace  and  unity,  as  a  friend  to  the 
Reformation,  and  as  an  uncompromising  adversary  to 
every  form  and  shape  of  Romanism.  I  do  it  as  a  brother, 
addressing  brethren,  without  the  fear  of  being  misappre- 
hended by  those  who  understand,  with  Jerome,  thai 
"  wherever  there  is  a  bishop,  whether  at  Rome  or  at 
Eugubiiun,  he  is  of  the  same  excellency,  of  the  same 
episcopate.  The  power  of  wealth,  or  the  lowliness  of 
poverty  does  not  make  a  bishop  either  less  or  greater.'" 
And  I  do  it  in  this  particular  form,  on  purpose  to  express 
the  more  plainly,  that  I  hold  myself  under  correction, 
especially  from  each  and  all  of  my  brethren  in  the  epis- 
copate, if  any  thing  which  I  conceive  it  my  duty  to  say, 
should  seem,  to  their  better  judgments,  unsound  or  objec- 
tionable. 

My  design  is  to  set  forth,  distinctly,  my  own  position, 
as  one  of  the  college  of  bishops,  (although,  it  may  be, 
the  least,)  in  reference  to  those  important  topics  in  which 
innovation  is  beginning  to  be  manifest ;  on  the  admitted 
maxim,  Obsta  principiis.  The  first  subject  which  I  shall 
present  is  that  of  Lay  Baptism,  inasmuch  as  the  novel  prac- 
tice of  re-baptizing  those  who  have  received  baptism  at 
1* 


the  hands  of  our  non-episcopal  brethren,  is  openly  defend- 
ed, and  is  on  the  increase.  My  motives  for  placing  this 
matter  at  the  commencement,  have  arisen  out  of  my 
official  sphere  of  duty.  The  public  allowance  of  re-bapti- 
zation  in  the  case  of  some  students  of  the  General  Semi- 
nary in  A.  D.  1841,  has  given  me  trouble  in  ray  own 
diocese.  Bound,  as  I  conceive,  by  the  strongest  ecclesiasti- 
cal arguments,  to  deny  the  lawfulness  of  such  re-baptiza- 
tion,  I  have  promised  to  publish  my  reasons;  and  I  address 
them  to  you  with  the  desire,  that  when  the  next  General 
Convention  meets  together,  under  the  favour  of  divine 
Providence,  this  may  be  one  of  the  points  on  which  I 
may  have  the  counsel  of  my  colleagues. 

Another  novelty  which  I  regret  to  see,  is  the  system- 
atic refusal  of  the  term  Church,  to  the  various  orthodox 
communities  of  our  non-episcopal  brethren,  on  the  alleged 
ground,  that  since  Episcopacy  is  manifestly  of  divine  in- 
stitution, there  can  be  no  Church  where  there  are  no 
bishops. 

A  third  novelty  to  which  I  cannot  assent,  is  the  view 
of  the  Real  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  as  set  forth 
in  the  Oxford  Tracts,  and  presented  in  the  late  sermon  of 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Pusey.  In  connexion  with  this  stands  the 
general  scope  of  what  is  called  the  sacramental  theolo- 
gy, and  the  theory  of  priestly  power. 

A  fourth  novelty,  which  has  produced  a  more  serious 
fermentation  than  all  the  rest,  in  consequence  of  the  re- 
cent ordination  of  Mr.  Carey,  is  the  theological  notion 
that  the  tenets  of  the  Council  of  Trent  may  be  recon- 
ciled to  sound  Catholic  (or  orthodox  and  primitive) 
doctrine.  And  along  with  this,  I  am  compelled  to 
classify  the  apparent  favour  exhibited  towards  the 
extraordinary  assault  of  a  Transatlantic  periodical,  the 
British  Critic,  upon  the  cardinal  doctrine  o\  Justijication 
by  faith,  and  the  Protestant  character  of  the  Church 
of  England. 

I  have  called  these  things  'Novelties,^  not  because  the 
notions  themselves  were  never  heard  before,  but  be- 
cause they  have  never  been  presented,  until  lately,  in 
such  a  form  and  under  such  peculiar  circumstances,  as 


to  disturb  our  peace  by  their  practical  influence.  That 
iti  this  respect  they  are  the  fruits  of  the  Tractarian  theory, 
is  doubted  by  no  one.  And  while  I  entertain  none  but 
the  kindUest  feeUngs  of  personal  regard  and  affection  to- 
wards the  distinguished  advocates  of  that  theory,  whe- 
ther in  our  mother  Church,  or  in  our  own,  I  have  al- 
ready, (in  my  Charge  of  1S42,)  been  obliged  to  dissent 
from  their  system;  and  now  propose  to  act  on  the  same 
principle,  under  the  vast  increase  of  responsibility,  which 
has  arisen  from  the  unexpected  developments  of  the  past 
year.  Perfectly  persuaded,  however,  that  all  my  brethren, 
with  one  heart,  "desire  the  prosperity  of  our  holy  apos- 
tolic Church,"  and  are  ready,  "  with  one  mouth,  to  pro- 
fess the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  I  cannot  con- 
sent to  prosecute  a  warfare  against  their  piety,  the  purity 
of  their  motives,  or  the  rectitude  of  their  intentions,  even 
when  I  am  compelled  to  oppose  what  I  conscientiously 
believe  to  be  serious  errors  in  judgment.  For  if  charity, 
as  the  apostle  saith,"rejoiceth  in  the  truth,"  it  may  be 
asserted,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  truth  rejoiceth 
no  less  in  charity. 

On  the  first  of  the  topics  specified,  viz.,  the  validity  of 
Lay-Baptism,  I  must  ask  your  indulgence  to  a  long 
array  of  argument  and  evidence,  not  only  because  it  has 
been  made  the  subject  of  several  able  publications  on  the 
other  side,  (the  lastofwhich,by  my  highly  esteemed  brother 
and  friend.  Professor  Ogilby,  I  have  not  yet  seen,*)  but  al- 
so because  of  its  ^ve^l  practical  importance  to  our  paro- 
chial clergy.  There  are  constant  accessions  to  the  Church 
from  the  various  Christian  communities  around  us,  and  the 
very  first  question  to  be  settled  in  all  such  cases  is,  whether 
the  persons  concerned  have  been  already  baptized  or 
not.  It  is  plainly,  therefore,  of  the  most  absolute  neces- 
sity to  have  fixed  and  definite  views  upon  this  matter; 
and  I  have  accordingly  devoted  considerable  time  and 
labour,  in  order  to  exhibit  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church,  along  with  the  proofs  on  which  it  is 
founded. 

*  I  have  been  informed  by  an  intelligent  clergyman,  that  the  Pro- 
fessor has  taken  the  same  line  of  argument  as  Waterland,  whose  work 
I  have  kept  chiefly  before  me  in   preparing  the  following  pages. 


8 

To  this  end,  I  shall  first  consider  the  question  as  it 
stands  in  our  mother  Church  of  England  since  the  Refor- 
mation, and  in  our  own  Church,  as  derived  from  her. 
Next,  I  shall  bring  the  doctrine  to  the  test  of  Scripture, 
and  Christian  antiquitj^;  and  lastly,  I  shall  point  out  some 
of  the  difficulties  which  encumber  the  contrary  opinion. 

It  is  universally  known,  not  only  that  Lay-Baptism 
was  the  prevalent  practice  of  the  whole  Western  Church, 
in  cases  of  extremity,  but  that  it  was  expressly  approved 
by  the  Church  of  England  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation; 
for  the  Prayer-Book  established  in  the  reign  of  Edward 
VI.,  gave  directions  for  the  mode  in  Avhich  a  layman 
might  perform  the  ordinance.  The  familiar  maxim 
in  theology  had  long  been  settled,  that  the  minister  was 
not  of  the  essence,  but  only  of  the  order  of  the  sacra- 
ment; and  therefore,  although  as  a  point  of  sacred  order,  a 
priest  was  required  when  he  could  be  obtained,yet  the  e*- 
seiice  of  baptism  might  be  had  under  a  lay-administration. 

The  first  man  of  note  who  laid  down  the  contrary 
doctrine  was  the  celebrated  John  Calvin,  (1)  "  We  judge 
that  baptism  to  be  adulterated  or  vitiated,"  saith  he, 
"which  is  administered  by  a  private  man,  and  this  teme- 
rity, in  a  well-ordered  Church,  ought  not  to  be  tolerated. 
But  because  this  thing  happened  among  you  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Reformation,  before  the  order  of  the  Church 
was  well  restored,  and  while  things  were  yet  in  confu- 

(1)  "Adulterinum  baptismum  censemus,  qui  administratus  est  a 
privato  homine  .  Ac  in  ecclesia,  recte  coraposita,  tolerabilis  non  esset 
heec  temeritas.  Sed  quia  id  apud  vos  inter  principia  contigit,  ante 
restitntiun  Ecclesife  ordinem,  et  rebus  adhuc  confusis ;  non  tantum 
errori  danda  est  venia,  sed  ferendus  est  qualiscunque  baptismus  : 
modo  ne  in  exemplum  trahatur,  quod  semel  perperam  gestum  est. 
Nam  inEcclesice  dissipatione  multaDeus  condonat,  qusenullo  modo  ad- 
mittere  fas  esset  in  Ecclesiam  bene  ordinatam.  Olim  cum  viliata  esset 
religio,  hand  dubie  multis  vitiis  et  corruptelis  implicita  circnmcisio  fuit; 
quam  tamen  iteratam  fuisse  non  legimus,  quum  revocaretur  populus 
ad  purum  cultum.  Ergo  anxie  disquirere  necesse  non  est,  ac  ne  ex- 
pedit  quidem.in  omnes  circumstantias,quce  innumeros  scrupulosgigne- 
rent.  Proinde  quod  ignovit  Deus  sub  Papatu,  nos  quoque  sepeliamus. 
Nunc  ubi  de  vero  baptismi  usu  admonita  fuerit  Ecclesia,  quod  pugna- 
ret  cum  Christi  institutione,  pro  nihiloducendum  esset ;  ac  de  integro 
baptizandus,  qui  pollutus  fuerit  profana  aspersione."  Calv.  Ep.  p.  209. 
Ed.  Amstel.  1667.  See  App.  to  Bingham's  Scholastic  Hist,  of  Lay- 
Baptism,  §  8,  to  which  I  am  indebted  for  the  passage. 


sion,  this  error  is  not  only  to  be  pardoned,  but  any  bap- 
tism is  to  be  admitted,  provided  the  irregularity  of  what 
was  once  done,  be  not  drawn  into  precedent  for  the  fu- 
ture. For,  in  the  dissipation  of  the  Church,  God  pardons 
many  things  thatare  not  to  be  admitted  of  in  a  well-order- 
ed Church.  Heretofore,  when  religion  was  corrupted,  no 
doubt  many  faults  and  corruptions  had  crept  into  cir- 
cumcision :  yet  we  do  not  read  that  it  was  repeated, 
when  the  people  were  brought  back  to  a  pure  worship. 
It  is  therefore  neither  necessary  nor  expedient  to  be  over 
anxious  in  our  inquiries  into  all  circumstances,  which  may 
raise  innumerable  scruples.  And  therefore,  what  God 
pardoned  under  the  Papacy,  let  us  also  bury.  Only  now, 
that  the  Church  is  instructed  in  the  true  use  of  baptism, 
what  is  repugnant  to  Christ's  institution  is  to  be  account- 
ed as  nothing  ;  and  he  is  to  be  baptized  again,  who  has 
been  polluted  by  a  profane  washing.'^ 

The  Rubric  of  the  Church  of  England,  however,  con- 
tinued the  same  through  the  long  reign  of  Ehzabeth,  not- 
withstanding the  influence  of  Calvin's  authority  ;  nor 
was  it  altered  until  the  famous  conference  at  Hampton 
Court;  and  then  it  was  done  to  gratify  King  James,  who 
had  been  educated  a  thorough  Presbyterian.  But  still 
there  was  no  condemnation  nor  prohibition  of  Lay-Bap- 
tism. The  bishops  merely  consented  that  it  should  not  be 
enjoined,  as  it  had  been  previously;  while  they  had  no  idea 
of  adopting  the  rule  of  Calvin,  by  treating  it  as  a  nullity. 
Nay,  more  than  a  century  after  this,  viz.  A.  D.  1712, 
th«re  was  a  formal  meeting  of  the  archbishops  with  the 
bishops,  in  consequence  of  Mr.  Lawrence's  publications 
on  the  subject ;  and  they  unanimously  resolved,  that 
'•'Lay-Baptism  should  be  discouraged  as  much  as  possi- 
ble,/;!/^ if  the  essentials  had  been  jjreserved  in  a  baptism 
by  a  lay  hand,  it  ivas  not  to  be  repeated.''^*'  In  full  ac- 
cordance with  this,  Bishop  Fleetwood,  cited  as  authority 
in  the  last  edition  of  Burns'  Ecclesiastical  Law,  express^- 
ly  asserts,  that  "  Lay-Baptism  is  not  declared  invalid  by 
any  of  the  offices  or  rubrics,  nor  in  any  public  act  hath 
tlie  Church  ever  ordered  such  as  have  been  baptized  by 

*See  Bishop  White's  Memoirs  of  the  Prot.  Ep.  Church,  p.  280-394 
of  first  edition. 


10 

lay  hands  to  be  baptized  by  a  lawful  minister,  though  at 
the  time  of  the  Restoration  there  were  supposed  to  be  2 
or  300,000  souls  baptized  by  such  as  are  called  lay  hands." 
A  glance  at  the  chronology  of  this  matter  may  aid 
the  force  of  the  argument.  The  Book  of  Common  Pray- 
er which  positively  enjoined  Lay-Baptism,  was  first  pub- 
lished in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  A.  D.  1548,  revised 
and  confirmed  in  1552,  and  again  revised  and  established 
under  Elizabeth,  in  1559.  The  Hampton  Court  Confe- 
rence which  altered  the  rubric  concerning  Lay-Baptism, 
at  the  instance  of  James  I.,  took  place  in  A,  D.  1603. 
The  Restoration  of  Charles  IL,  after  such  vast  numbers 
had  been  baptized  by  lay  hands.  Independents  and  others, 
was  in  A.D.  1660.  The  resolution  of  the  bishops,  occasion- 
ed by  Mr.  Lawrence's  book,  was  in  1712,  and  Bishop 
Fleetwood,  (who  was  probably  present,  since  he  was 
consecrated  to  the  see  of  St.  Asaph  in  1706)  died  in  1723, 
precisely  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  after  the  Confe- 
rence at  Hampton  Court,  and  sixty-three  years  after  the 
question  of  Lay-Baptism  must  have  been  pressed  upon 
the  conscience  of  the  Church  of  England  with  such  pecu- 
liar force,  by  the  state  of  the  kingdom,  at  the  accession  of 
the  second  Charles.  Hence  we  see  that  the  time  and  the 
circumstances  stamp  the  most  absolute  confirmation  upon 
the  doctriiie  maintained  by  the  ecclesiastical  law  of  Eng- 
land, viz. :  that  Baptism,  administered  by  lay  hands, 
though  irregular,  and  unauthorized  by  any  express  Rubric 
since  the  year  1603,  is  nevertheless  valid,  and  therefore 
NOT  TO  BE  REPEATED.  That  the  judgment  of  our  mo- 
ther Church  continues  the  same,  has  been  fully  proved 
by  the  late  case  of  Mastin  vs.  Escott,  in  which  one  of 
her  clergymen  was  sentenced  to  a  suspension  from  the 
ministry  during  three  months, for  having  refused  to  bury 
the  body  of  a  child  who  had  been  baptized  by  a  Metho- 
dist preacher,  under  the  plea  that  such  baptism  was  a 
mere  nullity;  being  performed,  not  by  a  'lawful  minister,' 
but  by  a  layman.  The  Ecclesiastical  Court  went  large- 
ly into  the  authorities,  and  condemned  the  clergyman  on 
the  ground  that  Lay-Baptism,  administered  with  water, 
in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  ivas  valid  and  sufficient 
by  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England.     And  this 


11 

decision,  after  an  obstinate  and  zealous  contest,  was  con- 
firmed, A.  D.  1841,  upon  an  appeal  to  the  highest  tribu- 
nal of  the  English  Ecclesiastical  law,  with  the  general  ap- 
probation of  the  Episcopal  Bench.  At  least  such  appro- 
bation must  in  fairness  be  inferred  from  the  fact,  that  no 
attempt  has  been  made  to  alter  the  legal  state  of  the 
question. 

Such  being  the  clear  and  harmonious  action  of  our 
mother  Church  upon  this  important  subject,  we  have 
next  to  examine  the  matter  as  respects  ourselves  since 
the  year  1789,  when  our  branch  of  the  Church  became 
possessed  of  a  complete  and  independent  organization. 
And  here  I  presume  that  there  can  be  but  one  opinion, 
since  it  is  familiar  to  all,  that  our  system  on  the  doctrine 
and  administration  of  baptism  is  precisely  the  same  with 
that  of  England.  Our  House  of  Bishops  have  further 
adopted  and  recommended,  as  theological  text-books, 
those  authors  who  expressly  sustain  the  validity  of  Lay- 
Baptism,  such  as  Hooker,  Burnet,  and  Potter.  Our  late 
venerable  Bishop  White,  who  presided  over  that  House 
for  half  a  century,  has  published  his  mature  decision  in 
favour  of  the  same  views  ;  and  it  is  only  since  his  de- 
cease that  any  other  doctrine  has  been  openly  advocated 
amongst  us :  so  that  up  to  the  present  hour,  nothing  has 
been  done  on  this  subject  by  the  authority  of  our  Church, 
which  changes  our  position  one  jot  from  that  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Our  principles  and  our  practice 
were  both  derived  from  her,  and  for  the  first  fifty  years 
of  our  ecclesiastical  independence,  our  concord  on  this 
point  was  unbroken.  A  few  cases,  indeed,  of  individual 
dissatisfaction  occurred  from  time  to  time  ;  but  they 
were  disposed  of  in  a  corner,  with  as  httle  publicity  and 
observation  as  possible,  and  were  generally  regarded, 
not  as  a  vindication  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  but 
rather  as  a  private  and  special  indulgence  to  over-scru- 
pulous minds,  about  which,  the  less  that  was  said,  the 
better. 

But  I  have  now  to  examine  the  consistency  of  all  this 
with  the  truth  of  Scripture,  and  the  doctrine  of  Christian 
antiquity ;  in  order  to  test  the  allegation  so  confidently 
made  by  the  writers  on  the  other  side,  that  the  Word  of 


12 

God  and  the  example  of  the  primitive  Church  stand  op- 
posed to  it. 

First,  then,  if  we  turn  to  ihe  Old  Testanrient,  we  shall 
find  that  those  sacramental  rites  which  were  afterwards 
committed  to  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  were  exercised 
from  the  beginning  without  restriction.  Thus,  Abel 
brought  his  sacrifice,  the  firstlings  of  his  flock.  Thus 
Noah  built  an  altar  and  offered  sacrifices.  Thus,  Abra- 
ham fulfilled  the  same  sacred  function ;  and  to  him  was 
committed  the  sacramental  rite  of  Circumcision,  which 
ordinance  held  the  same  place  with  his  posterity,  as  Bap- 
tism held  with  the  spiritual  Israel.  I  am  well  aware,  in- 
deed, of  the  distinction  which  the  ancient  fathers  gene- 
rally maintained,  between  those  sacramental  rites  and 
the  proper  Christian  sacraments,  calling  the  first  the 
iijpes  of  those  blessings  which  the  latter  actually  con- 
ferred. But  in  whatever  light  we  may  regard  this  point 
of  controversy,  the  analogy  is  sufficiently  strong.  The 
strict  propriety  of  arguing  from  Circumcision  to  Baptism, 
from  Sacrifices  to  the  Eucharist,  and  from  the  Aaronic 
priesthood  to  the  apostolic  ministry,  is  an  axiom  amongst 
all  sound  theologians,  the  authority  of  which  is  settled  and 
unquestionable. 

On  this  very  ground  of  analogy,  it  has  always  been 
held  most  reasonable  to  cite  the  law  which  required  in- 
fant Circumcision,  as  a  primary  evidence  in  favour  of 
infant  Baptism  ;  enough  of  itself  to  justify  the  Baptism 
of  infants,  unless  there  were  some  prohibition  in  the  New 
Testament  to  prevent  the  application  of  the  principle. 
But  assuredly,  if  it  be  right  to  assume  this  analogy  in  the 
subjects  of  the  two  ordinances,  it  must  be  equally  right  to 
claim  the  same  analogy  in  the  authority  of  the  adminis- 
trator. And  hence  it  becomes  important  to  observe, 
that  Circumcision  was  instituted  long  before  the  Aaronic 
priesthood  ;  that  even  women,  as  in  the  remarkable  in- 
stance of  Zipporah,  (Exod.  iv.  25,)  performed  it  in  cases 
of  extremity,  and  that  notwithstanding  the  institution  of 
the  Levitical  law  of  priesthood,  this  initiatory  rite  con- 
tinued free  to  every  Israelite  ;  although,  through  respect 
for  their  office,  a  Levite  was  always  employed  when 


13 

practicable.  Nor  is  this  the  full  extent  to  which 
the  principle  was  applied  in  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 
For,  as  is  well  observed  by  Isidore  of  Pelnsium,  even 
sacrifice  was  not  so  strictly  confined  to  the  order  of  the 
priesthood,  but  that  every  man  was  still  allowed  to  be 
a  priest  to  himself  and  to  his  family,  in  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Passover  ;  thus  verifying  the  declaration  of  the  Almighty 
to  the  very  letter,  that  Israel  was  a  kingdom  of  jjriests, 
and  a  holy  nation.     (3.) 

Now  here  there  seems  to  be  a  fair  demonstration  of 
the  theological  maxim,  that  the  priest  is  not  of  the  essence, 
bnt  only  of  the  ort/er  of  the  sacraments.  For  the  sacra- 
mental rites  of  ancient  Israel  were  these  two.  Sacrifice 
and  Circumcision.  But  although  sacrifice  was  formally 
committed  to  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  yet  it  is  most  mani- 
fest that  this  could  not  change  its  essence,  since  it  was  in 
esse,  or  in  existence,  since  the  period  of  the  fall.  It 
would  be  a  waste  of  words  to  prove,  what  is  evident  ex 
vi  termini,  that  the  essence  or  essential  element  of  a 
thing,  must  needs  be  that  ivithoiit  ivhich  it  cannot  exist. 
And  therefore,  as  the  ordinance  of  sacrifice  was  in  exist- 
ence from  the  time  of  Adam's  expulsion  from  paradise, 
and  continued  through  every  variety  of  the  patriarchal 

(2)  Isid.  Pelus.  Lib.  Hi.  Theodosio  Episcopo,  75,  p.  251.  "Pulcherrinia 
victima  est,  piam  mentem  et  carnem  caslam  habere. — Non  enim  ad 
sacerdotes  solos  scribens,  ut  ipse  estimas,  hsec  ipsis  mandabat,  (sc. 
apostolus)  sed  universse  Ecclesiae.  Unumquemque  enim  ipsorum  hac 
in  parte  sacerdotem  esse  jussit.  Quod  si  castitas  et  pudicitia  subditos 
sacerdotes  creat,  libido  proculdubio  ac  lascivia  sacerdotibus  dignita- 
tem abrogat. — TJt  enim  in  Veteri  Testamento  sacerdotii  munere  fungi 
exceptis  sacerdotibits  nemini  licebat,  Paschffi  tamen  tempore  omnes 
sacerdotii  honore  afficiebantur,  (unusquisque  enim  pecudem  immola- 
bat,)  sic  etiam  in  novo  ac  successionis  experte,  sejunctim  quidera,  ac 
velut  prPRrogativse  nomine,  incruentce  victimce  sacrificium  ii  habent, 
quibus  illud  offerre  concessum  est ;  at  interim  unusquisque  corporis 
sui  sacerdos  creatus  est;  non  ut  citra  ordinationem  et  institutionem 
subditorum  imperium  arripiat,  sed  ut  vitiis  imperans,  corpus  suum 
castitatis  delubrum  aut  templum  efficiat."  This  beautiful  idea,  that 
every  man  is  created  the  priest  of  his  own  body,  which  is  designed  to  be 
a  living  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  occurs  in  many  of  the  fathers  ;  and 
it  is  not  only  important  to  explain  the  true  ground  of  the  maxim  that 
the  instituted  official  priesthood  is  a  matter  of  order  and  not  of  essence, 
but  it  is  of  still  higher  value  as  the  guard  of  personal  piety. 
2 


14 

dispensation,  it  is  plain  that  the  institution  of  the  Leviti- 
cal  law  of  priesthood  could  not  be  designed  to  affect  its 
essential  ele7nents,  but  merely  to  fix,  in  a  higher  and 
more  solemn  form,  the  order  of  its  administration. 
Hence  if,  after  this  divine  appointment,  some  Israelite 
who  was  not  of  the  priesthood  had  undertaken  to  offer 
sacrifice,  it  would  seem  absurd  to  say  that  his  act  was  a 
nullity,  and  that  his  offering  was  no  sacrifice  at  all.  For 
in  truth,  the  act  itself  which  was  a  real  sacrifice  anterior 
to  the  priesthood  of  Aaron,  must  be  a  real  sacrifice  after- 
wards ;  although  the  offerer  would  now  be  guilty  of  a 
sacrilege  in  violathig  the  order  appointed  by  the  Almigh- 
ty, and  for  this  sin,  he  would  of  course  deserve  condem- 
nation. 

An  example,  fully  in  point,  occurs  in  the  case  of  Korah, 
Dathan,  and  Abiram  ;  who,  contumaciously  setting  them- 
selves up  against  the  priesthood  of  Aaron,  claimed  equal 
rights  for  every  Israelite.  "  Ye  take  too  much  upon  you^^ 
said  they  to  Moses  and  Aaron,  (Num.  xvi.  3,)  "  seeing 
all  the  congregation  are  holy,  every  one  of  them,,  and  the 
Lord  is  among  them:  wherefore  then  lift  ye  up  your- 
selves above  the  congregation  of  the  Lord?"  In  reply 
to  this  rebellious  assumption,  Moses  charges  them  plainly 
with  seeking  the  priesthood  ;  and  tells  them  to  take  cen- 
sers and  put  fire  therein,  and  put  incense  on  them  before 
the  Lord  to-morrow,  while  Aaron  should  do  the  same ; 
and  then  the  Almighty  himself  would  shew  who  were 
his  priests,  and  whom  he  had  chosen.  Korah  and  his 
company,  accordingly,  amounting  to  two  hundred  and 
fifty  men,  took  their  censers  and  offered  incense,  stand- 
ing in  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  with  Moses  and  Aaron. 
And  God  caused  Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram  to  be  swal- 
lowed up  alive,  by  the  earth  cleaving  asunder  that  was 
under  them.  Nor  was  this  awful  punishment  of  the 
ring-leaders  all  that  the  divine  judgment  thought  neces- 
sary to  vindicate  the  priesthood.  For  we  read  further, 
that  there  came  out  a  fire  from  the  Lord,  and  consumed 
the  two  hundred  and  fifty  men  that  offered  incense. 

It  is  here  that  we  meet  with  an  important  fact,  directly 
applicable  to  our  subject ;  because  it  shews  that  although 


15 

these  bold  schismatics  were  thus  dreadfully  visited  for 
their  wilful  contumacy,  yet  theik  offering  was  not 
TREATED  AS  A  NULLITY.  For  the  Lovd  spcike  unto  Mo- 
ses, saying,  Speak  unto  Eleazer  the  son  of  Aaron  the 
j)7'iest,  that  he  take  up  the  censers  out  of  the  burning, 
and  scatter  thou  the  fire  yonder,  for  they  are  halloived. 
The  censers  of  these  sinners  against  their  own  souls,  let 
them  make  thein  broad  plates  for  a  covering  of  the  altar, 

FOR  THET  OFFERED  THEM  BEFORE  THE  LORD,  THEREFORE 

THEY  ARE  HALLOWED.  (lb.  38.)  No  language  could 
more  distinctly  prove  that  the  condescension  of  the  Deity 
attaches  a  consecrated  character  to  whatever  maybe  offer- 
ed to  his  service,  however  rebellious  the  spirit  of  the  of- 
ferer. The  subject  of  the  offering  is  accepted  as  a  hallow- 
ed thing,  while  the  sacrilegious  usurpers  are  cut  off  in 
their  iniquity. 

Now  if  such  a  principle  appears  in  the  instance  of  those 
most  atrocious  schismatics,  Korah  and  his  company,  and 
with  respect  to  the  brazen  censers  on  which  they  per- 
formed their  act  of  usurpation,  it  would  seem  quite  pre- 
posterous to  deny  the  application  of  the  rule  by  the  All- 
merciful  Redeemer,  to  the  case  of  laymen,  exercising 
their  ministry  in  good  faith,  though  erroneously,  when 
the  subject  to  be  consecrated  by  their  priestly  acts  is  not 
an  insensible  piece  of  metal,  but  an  immortal  soul,  for 
whom  Christ  died — God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever!  If  then 
the  offering  of  Korah's  comj)any  had  the  effect  of  hallow- 
ing the  censers,  notwithstanding  the  sinful  usurpation  of 
the  offerers,  much  more  may  we  believe  that  the  indivi- 
dual offered  to  the  Lord  in  Baptism,  and  every  other  sub- 
ject of  religious  dedication,  is  halloived  by  the  act,  how- 
ever the  agents  may  expose  themselves  to  the  wrath 
of  God,  by  their  invasion  of  the  priesthood  without 
authority. 

I  may  have  occasion,  however,  to  resume  this  part  of 
the  argument,  for  a  different  purpose,  hereafter ;  and 
therefore  I  shall  pass  on  to  the  New  Testament,  where 
some  interesting  proofs  occur  of  the  same  merciful  prin- 
ciple, that  deviations  from  the  appointed  order  are  not 
suffered  to  destroy  the  validity  of  the  acts  of  men,  in  the 


16 

performance  of  religious  functions.  For  example,  our 
Lord,  on  a  certain  occasion,  saith  to  the  people  ;  "  The 
Scribes  and  the  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat;  all  there- 
fore whatsoever  they  bid  you  observe,  that  observe  and 
do  ;  but  do  not  ye  after  their  works,  for  they  say  and  do 
not."  (Matt,  xxiii.  2.)  Now  it  is  certain,  that  before  our 
Saviour's  day,  the  succession  of  the  high-priesthood  in 
the  line  of  Aaron  had  been  shamefully  disregarded 
and  virtually  lost.  (3)  Yet  our  Lord  would  iiave  the 
priesthood  defaclo  respected  notwithstanding,  and  even 
bestowed  on  one  of  these  illegal  High  Priests,  Caiaphas, 
the  gift  of  prophecy. 

Again,  we  read  that  the  apostles  saw  a  man  casting  out 
devils  in  the  name  of  Christ ;  and  ive  forbad  Imn,  saith 
St.  John,  because  he  followeth  not  us.  But  Jesus  said, 
FORBID  HIM  NOT,  for  there  is  no  man  which  shall  do  a 
miracle  in  my  name,  that  can  lightly  speak  evil  of  me. 
For  he  that  is  7iot  against  us  is  on  our  part.  (Mark 
ix.  38.)  Now  it  seems  manifest  that  this  individual 
was  acting  schismatically,  for  he  was  not  only  using  the 
authority  of  the  groat  Redeemer  without  permission,  but 
even  kept  himself  separate  from  the  society  of  our  Lord 
and  his  disciples  at  the  very  time.  But  the  compassion- 
ate Saviour  could  make  allowances,  where  men  could 
see  nothing  but  ground  for  censure.  From  the  mere  fact 
that  the  devils  were  cast  out  by  this  stranger  in  the  name 
of  Christ,  we  may  be  sure  that  the  principle  of  faith 
must  have  been  active;  and  our  Lord,  kindly  accepting 
thiSjOverlooks  his  want  of  a  regular  commission, and  saith, 

(3)  Thus  Josephus  expressly  informs  us.  "Primus  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes  earn  legem  violavit,  pro  Jesu  subrogate  in  hoc  sacerdotium 
fratre  ipsius  Onia.  Secundo  Aristobiilus  ab  Hyrcano  fratre  eum  hono- 
rem  in  se  transtulit.  Tertius  Herodes  Aristobulum  adolescentem  vivo 
adhuc  poatifice  successorem  dedit,  &c.  Antiquit.  Jud.  Lib.  XV., 
Cap.  III.  p.  513.  In  the  20th  Book,  8th  Chapter,  and  18th  section,  he 
further  gives  an  historical  list  of  the  high-priests  from  Aaron  down  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  towards  the  close  of  which,  after  advert- 
ing to  the  murder  of  the  youthful  Aristobulus,  the  last  of  the  rightful 
succession,  he  adds,  (p.  701,  F.)  "  Neque  postea  ulli  ex  Asamonceorum 
posteritate  hoc  sacerdotium  committere  voluit.  Idem  fecit  in  ordi- 
nandis  pontificibus  Archelaus  ejus  filius,  (so.  Herodis)  et  Romani, 
qui  i>ost  ilium  potestate  pra?fuerunt  provincise." 


17 

FORBID  HIM  NOT.  I  confess  that  I  have  always  regarded 
this  affecting  incident  as  pregnant  with  instruction,  on  the 
subject  of  unauthorized  ministrations.  For  when  we 
see  so  many  varieties  of  our  Christian  brethren,  who 
hold  themselves  aloof,  not  purposely,  like  the  individual 
mentioned  in  the  gospel,  but  ig7iorantIi/,  from  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  apostohc  ministry,  and  who  yet  cast  out  devils 
in  the  name  of  Christ,  by  the  power  which  attends  their 
preaching  of  his  truth,  it  seems  to  me,  that  if  I  had  the 
power  to  do  so,  I  dare  not  forbid  them,  though  they  fol- 
low not  with  us.  Nor  can  I  doubt,  on  the  strength  of 
the  Evangelist's  narrative,  that  the  Lord  accepts  their 
work,  notwithstanding  their  schismatic  mode  of  perform- 
ing it.  And  I  desire  cordially  to  thank  Him  for  the  kind 
indulgence  with  which  He  blesses  the  efforts  of  their  faith, 
even  when  accompanied  by  the  sin  of  disregarding  his  ap- 
pointed ministerial  order. 

Once  more,  I  find  the  great  apostle  declaring  that 
some  jjreach  Christ,  even  of  envy  and  strife,  and  some  of 
good  will :  The  one,  saith  he,  preach  Christ  of  conten- 
tion, not  sincerely,  supposing  to  add  affliction  to  my 
bonds :  but  the  other  of  love,  knoiving  that  I  am  set 
for  the  defence  of  the  gospel.  What  then?  Notwith- 
standing, every  way,  ivhether  in  pretence  or  in  truth, 
Christ  is  preached,  and  I  therein  do  rejoice,  yea,  and 
will  rejoice.  (Phil.  i.  15.)  Assuredly,  there  is  here  an- 
other exhibition  of  the  principle,  that  God  will  give  effi- 
ciency to  every  part  of  his  own  divine  system,  however 
defectively  it  may  be  administered  by  men.  The  apos- 
tle did  not  rejoice  on  account  of  the  unrighteousness  of 
these  unsanctified  proclaimers  of  the  gospel,  for  he 
knew  that  if  they  repented  not,  they  must  perish  in  their 
sin.  But  he  rejoiced  that  the  gospel  was  proclaimed, 
for  that  would  save  those  who  received  the  message  of 
celestial  love  in  faith,  notwithstanding  the  destruction  of 
the  messenger. 

It  is  more  directly  to  my  present  purpose,  however,  to 

speak  of  the  rule  which  appears  to  have  governed  the 

administration  of  Baptism.     And  here  it  may  be  well  to 

observe,  that  the  ordinance  of  Baptism  had  been  familiar 

2* 


18 

to  the  Jews  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  and  had  been 
long  used,  together  with  Circumcision,  as  a  regular  part 
of  the  ceremonial,  by  which  proselytes  were  admitted  to 
the  Church  of  ancient  Israel.  For  this  reason,  it  had  be- 
come naturally  associated  in  their  minds  with  the  com- 
mencement of  a  religious  course  of  life,  in  connexion  with 
some  change  of  religious  principle  ;  and  therefore  they 
were  prepared  to  expect  it  when  Elias  should  come,  and 
especially  when  the  Messiah  should  appear.  Hence 
their  question  to  John  the  Baptist,  Why  baptizest  thou 
then,  if  thou  be  not  the  Christ,  neither  Elias,  neither 
that  prophet?  The  peculiarity  of  Christian  Baptism, 
therefore,  lay  not  in  the  application  of  water  as  marking 
a  new  religious  profession,  for  this  had  been  used  long 
before  ;  but  in  the  spiritual  efficacy  with  which  it  was  to 
be  accompanied,  by  virtue  of  our  Lord's  atoning  sacri- 
fice and  infinite  merits,  when  administered  in  the  name 
of  the  blessed  Trinity,  and  in  the  power  of  a  living  faith. 
And  hence,  John  the  Baptist  stated  the  distinction  most 
accurately  when  he  said;  /  have  baptized  you  with 
luater  unto  repentance,  but  He  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  the  commission  to  administer 
Baptism  in  this  new  and  sublime  aspect,  was  given  to 
the  apostles,  after  our  Lord's  resurrection,  and  by  his 
own  divine  command.  And  therefore  it  is  a  plain  and 
obvious  principle  of  apostolic  order,  that  the  regular  ex- 
ercise of  this  commission  can  only  be  found  in  the  minis- 
try which  they  instituted  ;  since  none  other  can  formally 
claim  the  benefit  of  the  Redeemer's  promise  ;  '^  Lo,  I  am 
ivith  you  alioays,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  icorld.'^  Most 
manifest  it  is,  that  this  promise  involves  the  necessity  of 
what  we  call  The  Apostolical  Succession.  For  as 
the  apostles  themselves  died  in  a  few  years,  the  oldest  of 
them,  St.  John,  not  having  survived  the  close  of  the  first 
century,  it  seems  preposterous  to  suppose  that  the  Sa- 
viour intended  to  be  with  them,  even  to  the  end  of  the 
luorld,  in  any  other  than  an  official  sense.  As  individ- 
ual  men,  he  well  knew  that  they' would  soon  close  their 
mortal  career ;  but  as  the  ruling  and  ordaining  officers 
q/'  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  they  would  continue  to  live 


19 

in  their  successors  ;  and  therefore  it  seems  as  demonstra- 
bly certain  that  they  were  intended  to  have  successors, 
as  it  is  certain  that  the  word  of  Christ  cannot  pass  away. 
It  is  our  sacred  privilege  to  know  tl)at  we  stand  in  the 
line  of  that  apostolic  succession,  that  we  have  the  com- 
plete and  formal  title  to  all  its  benefits,  and  that  we  have 
a  correspondent  account  to  render  for  its  fearful  respon- 
sibilities. On  this  topic,  however,  I  shall  not  enlarge  ; 
for  my  object  is  not  so  much  to  dvv^ell  on  those  familiar 
truths  which  are  zealously  and  constantly  repeated,  as  to 
assert  and  illustrate  those  doctrines  which  are  less  ac- 
ceptable, and  therefore  more  liable  to  be  not  simply  for- 
gotten, but  sometimes  even  denied. 

It  belongs,  therefore,  to  my  proposed  course  of  argu- 
ment, to  observe,  that  the  commission  to  baptize,  although 
given  by  our  Lord  to  his  apostles,  was  not  considered  by 
them  as  intended  to  be  confined  to  their  own  order.  For 
we  do  not  find  them  treating  it  like  the  higher  powers  of 
confirmation,  ordination,  and  government,  which  were 
transmitted,  (as  in  the  cases  of  Timothy,  the  first  bishop 
of  Ephesus,  and  Titus,  the  first  bishop  of  Crete,)  to  cho- 
sen individuals,  of  tried  experience  and  high  qualifica- 
tions. So  far  is  this  from  the  facts  of  the  Sacred  History, 
that  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  three  thousand  men 
were  baptized  between  the  delivery  of  St.  Peter's  sermon 
and  the  setting  of  the  sun,  it  is  demonstrably  evident  that 
the  apostles  must  have  availed  tliemselves  of  other  hands 
beside  their  own;  for  twelve  men  could  not,  by  any  phy- 
sical possibility,  have  baptized  so  great  a  multitude  in 
that  short  interval,  and  at  that  time,  there  was  not  a  dea- 
con ordained  to  assist  them.  Hence  Bishop  Bilson,  at 
the  famous  Hampton-Court  conference,  cited  this  trans- 
action as  a  Scriptural  proof  that  laymen  might  adminis- 
ter baptism,  judging  that  the  apostles  must  have  called 
in  the  aid  of  the  laity  on  this  solemn  occasion.*     A  little 

*I  do  not,  for  my  own  part,  adopt  this  view  of  Bishop  Bilson,  be- 
cause I  prefer  the  idea  that  the  seventy  disciples  held  a  permanent 
commission  under  the  apostles,  and  therefore  that  there  was  no  such 
necessity  for  the  ministry  of  laymen,  as  he  supposes,  on  that  day. 
Where  there  was  a  reasonable  necessity,  however,  I  have  no  doubt  of 
their  being  so  employed,  as  must  have  been  especially  the  case,  for 
some  years,  amongst  the  gentile  churches. 


20 

further  on  in  the  Sacred  History,  we  find  the  deacon 
Philip  preaching  to  the  Samaritans  and  baptizing  them ; 
while  two  of  the  apostles,  Peter  and  John,  are  sent  from 
Jerusalem  to  confirm  these  new  disciples,  by  the  laying 
on  of  hands  and  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Nor 
is  this  all.  For  in  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corin- 
thians, we  see  a  state  of  things  allowed,  for  the  time 
then  being,  which  strongly  reminds  one  of  the  simplicity 
of  the  patriarchal  dispensation  ;  every  worshipper  being 
permitted  to  speak  in  their  public  assemblies,  and  even 
to  have  the  Eucharist  administered  by  the  hands  of  each 
other,  until  the  period  should  arrive  when  they  could 
have  the  regular  order  of  the  ministry  established  amongst 
them. 

To  those  who  have  not  reflected  maturely  upon  the 
subject,  this  idea  is  apt  to  appear  extravagant ;  and  yet 
nothing  seems  to  my  mind  more  evident  than  the  proof 
that  it  must  have  been  so,  during  the  first  years  of  gentile 
conversion.  For  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  the  evan- 
gelizing of  the  whole  world  was  committed  to  the  thir- 
teen apostles  ;  and  a  specimen  of  their  labours  is  record- 
ed in  the  travels  of  St.  Paul.  From  city  to  city,  he  went 
in  the  power  of  the  Spirit;  and  in  every  place,  a  com- 
pany of  believers,  more  or  less  numerous,  gathered 
around  him.  But  how  were  they  to  be  supplied  with  an 
ordained  ministry,  when  the  apostle  was  driven  away  by 
persecution,  or  appointed  to  some  other  sphere  of  effort 
by  his  divine  Master?  Most  manifest  it  is,  that  no 
one  amongst  a  set  of  newly  converted  heathen  could 
be  ready  to  discharge  the  pastoral  function.  Men  whose 
minds  had  been,  from  infancy,  filled  with  the  debasing 
fables  of  the  pagan  mythology — who  had  been,  but  a 
little  time  before,  bowing  down  before  stocks  and 
stones,  and  to  whom  the  Scriptures  were,  as  yet,  an 
unknown  book, — surely,  amongst  such  as  these,  the 
apostle  could  not,  by  any  moral  possibility,  find  persons 
fit  to  be  ordained,  as  authorized  teachers,  rulers,  and 
priests  to  their  brethren,  until  some  years,  at  least,  had 
been  spent  in  a  course  of  study  and  preparation.  And 
therefore  it  seems  plain,  that  Churches  must  have  grown 


21 

up  in  every  quarter  of  the  Gentile  world,  before  there 
could  have  been  pastors  ready  for  them  ;  and  hence  it  be- 
came absolutely  necessary  to  allow  Christians  to  meet 
together,  and  edify  and  minister  to  one  another  as  well 
as  they  could,  in  the  beginning  of  the  work  ;  until,  by 
degrees,  the  ranks  of  the  ministry  could  be  regularly 
supplied  ;  and  then  the  license  which  necessity  alone 
could  justify,  would  gradually  disappear  when  the  neces- 
sity had  ceased.   (4) 

This,  therefore,  must  he  granted  to  the  argument  of 
our  Congregational  brethren,  when  viewed  in  the  light 
oi  apostolic  license,  as  a  matter  of  reasonable  necessity, 
during  the  era  of  extraordinary  gifts  and  graces,  and  for 
the  sake  of  building  up  the  walls  of  the  spiritual  temple 
in  the  desolate  wastes  of  heathen  idolatry.  Unhappily, 
however,  they  mistake  a  temporary  license^  called  for  by 

(4)  There  is  nothing  new  in  the  foregoing  hypothesis,  since  it  will 
be  found  to  agree  in  substance  with  many  of  the  fathers ;  especially, 
with  the  precise  words  of  the  early  commentator  on  the  epistles, 
whose  work  is  published  along  with  that  of  Ambrose,  bishop  of  Milan, 
and  is  commonly  set  down  to  A.  D.  355.  (Ambrosii  0pp.  in  App. 
Com.  inEp.  ad  Ephesios,  Cap.  4,  v.  12,  p.  241.)  "In  episcopo  omnes  ordi- 
nes  sunt ;  quia  primus  sacerdos  est,  hoc  est,  princeps  est  sacerdotum, 
et  propheta,  et  evangelista,  et  cetera  adimplenda  officia  Ecclesiise  in 
ministro  fidclium.  Tamen  postquam  in  omnibus  locis  Ecclesias  sunt  con- 
stituix  et  offic'a  ordinata,  aliter  composiia  res  est,  quam  caperat.  Phi- 
mum  eMimo.HNF.s  nocKiiA>"r,ETO]ttis'Bs  v\PTiZASAyT, qitibiiscumqjcediebus 
vel  femporibusfuis&d  occasio" — "  Ut  ergo  cresceret  plebs  et  mult  i pit  car  etur, 

OMXIHUS  INTER.  INITIA  COXCESSUM    EST     ET     ETA^"  GEEI Z  AHE,     ET     BAPTI- 

ZAKE,  ET  ScRirTunAs  IX  EccLEsiA  explaxahe.  At  ubi  omnia  loca  cir- 
cumplexa  est  Ecclesia,  conventicula  constitnta  sunt,  et  rectores,  et 
caetei-a  officia  in  Ecclesiis  sunt  ordinata  ;ut  nuUus  de  clericis  auderet, 
qui  ordinatus  non  esset,  prcesamere  oflicium,  quod  sciret  non  sibi  cre- 
ditum  vel  concessum.  Et  coepit  alio  ordine  et  providentia  guber- 
nari  Ecclesia,  quia  si  omnes  eadem  possent,  irrationabile  esset,  ut 
vulgaris  res,  et  vilissima  videretnr.  Hinc  ergo  est.unde  nunc  neque 
diaconi  in  populo  praedicant,  neque  clerici  vel  laici  baptizant,  neque 
quocunque  die  credentes  tinguntur  nisi  aegri,  &lc. 

And  again,  the  same  author,  (Com.  in  1.  Epist.  ad  Corinth.  C. 
II.,  V.  19,  ib.  p.  148)  saith,  "Quia  adhuc  redorea  Ecclesiis  non  omnibus 
hcis  f Iterant  constituli."  Many  coincidences  will  appear  in  the  course 
of  the  siibsequent  notes,  as  where  the  fathers  consider  that  the  priest- 
hood, in  a  certain  sense,  belongs  to  all ;  and  that  Baptism  is  the  priest- 
hood of  the  laity. 


22 

necessity,  for  a  permanent  system,  designed  for  the 
Church  of  God  to  the  end  of  time ;  as  if  the  Uberty  alio  \v- 
ed  in  the  erection  of  an  edifice  could  furnish  a  ride  for 
its  occupancy  and  government  after  it  was  Jini shed  and 
complete.  But  license  is  one  thing,  and  system  is  an- 
other :  and  while  each  may  be  right  in  its  proper  place, 
no  sound  and  reflecting  mind  can  confound  them  to- 
gether. Still,  in  this  very  license,  I  cannot  avoid  recog- 
nizing the  same  principle  which  has  already  been  proved 
from  the  Old  Testament,  namely,  the  essence  or  existence 
of  the  sacraments,  without  the  priestly  order  o{  their  ad- 
ministration. For  just  as  Sacrifice  and  Circumcision  ex- 
isted anterior  to,  and  therefore  independent  upon  the 
Aaronic  priesthood,  so  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucharist 
appear  to  have  existed  in  the  newly  converted  Churches 
of  the  Gentiles,  although  administered  by  the  hands  of 
laymen,  anterior  to  the  period  when  the  apostolic  priest- 
hood could  be  established  among  them. 

How  long  this  license  continued,  it  would  be  impossible 
to  decide.  It  may  have  been  from  three  or  four  to  ten 
years,  before  the  apostles  were  able  to  set  the  whole  sys- 
tem in  order.  But  from  the  Scriptural  evidence  furnished 
by  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  we 
know  that  the  Episcopal  or  Apostolic  form  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal government  must  have  been  perfectly  established 
some  time  before  his  death  ;  and  the  uniformity  of  the  ar- 
rangement maybe  considered  as  proved  by  superabundant 
testimony,  since  it  meets  the  student  of  the  Scriptures  in 
the  angels  (or  bishops)  of  the  seven  churches  of  Asia, 
mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Revelation,  and  appears  in  the 
constant  statement^-  of  all  ecclesiastical  history.  Nor 
indeed  is  it  possible  to  conceive  how  the  apostles  could 
have  set  up  tiie  kingdom  of  Christ  throughout  the  world, 
during  a  ministry  which  averaged  nearly  forty  years, 
without  having  fixed  upon  so-?ne  definite  plan  of  eccle- 
siastical government.  And  surely,  as  they  were  all  in- 
structed by  the  same  Holy  Spirit,  it  requires  no  argument 
to  prove,  that  the  system  of  one  must  have  been  the  sys- 
tem of  ALL. 


23 

It  is  quite  evident,  however,  that  the  Hcense  given  to 
the  laity  to  baptize,  or  even  to  exercise  the  higher  func- 
tions of  the  ministry,  in  the  absence  of  the  regular  and  or- 
dained priesthood,  may  or  may  not  have  been  engrafted 
into  the  permanent  episcopal  system,  in  whole  or  in  part. 
Whether  it  was  so  engrafted,  and  to  what  extent,  we  can 
only  learn  from  the  testimony  of  Christian  antiquity.  To 
this,  therefore,  I  shall  next  appeal,  availing  myself  of  the 
Latin  versions  in  the  case  of  the  Greek  fathers  and 
Councils,  as  a  matter  of  greater  ease  to  readers  in  general, 
and  giving  the  substance  in  an  English  dress,  without 
confining  myself,  except  in  some  particular  cases,  to  the 
stiffness  of  a  close  and  literal  translation. 

The  oldest  witness  upon  the  subject  is  Tertullian,  who, 
in  his  book  concerning  Baptism,  lays  down  the  principle 
in  these  words:  "The  chief  priest,"  saith  he,  "  that  is, 
the  bishop,  has  power  to  give  Baptism,  and  next  to  him, 
the  presbyters  and  deacons  ;  but  not  without  the  authori- 
ty of  the  bishop,  on  account  of  the  honour  of  the  Church; 
which  being  guarded,  peace  is  preserved.  For  other- 
wise, it  is  lawful  for  laymen  to  administer  it ;  since 
that  which  is  rightfully  received,  may  be  rightfully 
given."  (5)  Elsewhere  the  same  author  asserts  the  inhe- 
rent priesthood  of  the  laity,  in  general  terms,  and  extends 
it  to  both  the  sacraments  ;  he  saith  that  luherever  there 
are  three,  e.ve?i  although  they  be  laymen,  there  is  the 
Church ;  and  assigns  as  a  reason,  that  evety  one  lives  by 
his  own  faith.  (6) 

The  next  early  testimony  involving  the  principle,  oc- 


(5)  Tertul.  Lib.  de  Baptismo,  Cap.  17.  Dandi  quidem  habet  jus  sum- 
mus sacerdos  qui  estepiscopus.  Dehincpresbyteri  etdiaconi,  nontamen 
sine  episcopi  auctoritate,  propter  Ecclesioe  honorem  ;  quo  salvo,  salva 
pax  est.  Alioquin  etiam  laicis  jus  est.  Quod  enim  ex  cequo  accipitur, 
ex  aequo  dari  potest,  &c. 

(6)  Tertul.  de  Exhort.  Castit.  ^YIL,  p.  522.  Nonne  et  laici  sacerdo- 
tes  sumus  ]  Scriptum  est,  Regnum  quoque  nos  et  sacerdotes  Deo  et 
Patri  suo  fecit.  Differentiam  inter  ordinem  et  plebem  constituit 
Ecclesise  auctoritas,  et  honor  per  ordinis  concessum  sanctificatus,  adeo 
ubi  ecclesiaslici  ordinis  non  est  consessus,  et  offers,  et  tinguis,  et  sacer- 
dos es  solus.  Sed  ubi  tres,  Ecclesia  est,  licet  laici ;  unusquisque 
enim  sua  fide  vivit. 


curs  in  the  famous  controversy  which  arose  about  A. 
D.  250,  concerning  the  vaHdity  of  heretical  baptisms; 
in  which  Cyprian,  the  bishop  of  Carthage,  asserted  their 
absolute  nulhty,  while,  on  the  contrary,  Stephen,  the  bish- 
op of  Rome,  maintained  that  those  who  had  been  bap- 
tized by  heretics  and  afterwards  came  to  the  Catholic 
Church,  should  not  be  baptized  again,  but  should  be  re- 
ceived with  the  imposition  of  hands,  or,  as  we  now  call 
it,  Confirmation.  (7)  It  is  worthy  of  observation  that 
Stephen  insisted  on  this  as  the  proper  course,  on  the 
strength  of  apostolical  tradition ;  which  argument 
Cyprian  opposed  by  demanding  plain  Scriptural  proof; 
denying  that  any  thing  could  be  properly  termed  aposto- 
lical tradition,  unless  it  were  expressly  set  down  in  the 
writings  of  the  apostles. 

(7)  Cypriani  Epist.  ad  Pump.contra  Ep'.sf.  Slepkani,  p.  152.  "  Quam- 
quam  plene  ea  qua3  de  hrereticis  baptizandis  dicenda  sunt,  complex! 
sumus  in  epislolis,  quarum  ad  te  exempla  transmisimus,  frater  caris- 
sime,  tamen  quia  desiderasti  in  notitiam  tuam  perferri, quas  mihi  ad  litte- 
ras  nostras  Stephanus  frater  noster  rescripserit,  misi  tibi  rescripti  ejus 
exemplum,  quo  lecto  magis  ac  magis  ejus  errorem  denotabis,  qui  hcere- 
ticorum  causam  contra  Christianos,  et  contra  Ecciesiam  Dei  asserere 
conatur.  Nam  iitter  crrtera  vel  superba  vel  ad  rem  non  pertinentia,  vel 
sibi  ipsi  contraria,  qure  imperite  atque  improvide  scripsit,  etiam  illud 
adjunxerit,  ut  diceret :  SI  quis  ergo  a  quacunque  liseresi  venerit  ad  nos, 
nihil  innovetur  nisi  quod  trudituin  est,ut  rnanus  illi  impunatur  in  pceni- 
tentiam  :  &c.  Unde  est  ista  traditio  ?  U trumne  de  dominica  et  evan- 
c'elica  auctoritate  descendens,  an  de  apostolorum  mandatis  atque 
epistolis  veniensi — Si  ergo  ant  in  Evangelic  prcecipitur,  aut  in  apos- 
tolorum epistolis,  aut  Actibus  conlinetur,  ut  a  quacumque  hferesi 
venientes  non  baptizentur,  sed  tantum  manus  illis  imponantur  in 
poenitentiam,  observetur  divina  hrec  et  sancta  traditio. — Qua;  ista  ob- 
stinatio  est,  quceve  praisumptio,  humanam  traditionem  divince  dispo- 
sitioni  anteponere,"  &c. 

It  is  altogether  probable  that  Cyprian,  whose  veneration  for  Tertul- 
lian  was  so  great,  that  he  commonly  called  this  writer  his  master,  de- 
rived his  opinion  against  the  validity  of  heretical  Baptisms  from  the 
authority  of  that  eminent  and  extraordinary  man.  But  on  a  careful 
examination  of  TertuUian's  language,  I  think  it  will  be  apparent  that 
he  only  rejected  the  Baptisms  of  those  heretics  who  had  depraved 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  faith,  and,  inconsequence,  had  adul- 
terated the  form  of  the  Sacrament.  And  if  so,  his  sentiments  were  in 
accordance  with  the  decrees  which  the  councils  passed  more  than  a 
century  after  his  departure.  His  words  are  these  :  (Tertul.  de  Baptis- 
mo,  C.  XV.  p.  230,  A.  B.)     "  Sed  circa  haereticos  sane  quid  custodien- 


25 

The  third  testimony  in  the  order  of  time,  is  that  of  the 
Council  of  Elvira,  in  Spain,  held  about  A.  D.  313;  the 
thirty-eighth  canon  of  which  expressly  approves  the  ad- 
ministration of  Baptism  by  a  layman,  provided  it  be 
done  in  cases  of  necessity,  and  that  the  baptizer  himself 
be  free  from  bigamy,  and  of  pure  life  and  conversation.  (8) 

The  fourth  evidence  is  of  higher  dignity,  because  it 
is  furnished  by  the  great  Council  of  Aries,  at  which  hun- 
dreds of  bishops  from  distant  quarters  of  the  Church, 
especially  from  Britain,  assembled  together  at  the  call  of 
the  Emperor  Constantine,  A.  D.  314.  It  was  here  that  the 
old  controversial  question  between  Cyprian  and  Stephen 
received  its  determination  ;  for  the  eighth  canon  of  the 
Council  decreed,  that  if  any  one  leaves  a  heresy,  and  re- 
turns to  the  Church,  he  shall  be  interrogated  concerning 
the  creed ;  and  if  it  be  known  that  he  was  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  imposition  of  hands  only  shall  be  given  him,  that 
he  may  receive  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  if  he  does  not  confess 
that  Trinity,  let  him  be  baptized.  (9)  This  solemn  decision 
was  universally  received,  and  from  that  early  day,  no 
Council  of  the  Church  has  delivered  any  other  doctrine. 

In  A.  D.  325,  only  eleven  years  later,  the  General 
Council  of  Nice  assembled  by  the  command  of  the 
same  emperor,  and  two  of  the  canons  of  tliis  most 
important  of  the    Councils  bear  directly   on  the  ques- 

dum  sit,  digne  quis  retractet,  ad  nos  enim  editum  est.  Hasretici  autem 
nullum  habent  consortium  nostrae  discipline,  quos  estraneos  utique 
testatur  ipsa  ademptio  communicationis.  Non  debeo  in  illis  cognos- 
cere  quod  mihi  est  praeceptura,  quia  non  idem  Deiis  est  nobis  et  illis,  nee 
unus  Christ  us,  id  est,  idem,  idcoque  nee  baptismus  uniis,  quia  iion  idem, 
quern  cum  rit6  non  habeant,  sine  dubio  non  habent.' 

(8)  Concil.  EUberitanum,  Concil.  Gen. Hard.  Tom.l.p.  254.  "Peregre 
navigantes,  aut  si  ecclesia  in  proximo  non  fuerit,  posse  fidelem,  qui 
lavacrum  suum  integrum  habet,  nee  sit  bigamus,  baptizare  in  necessi- 
tate infirmitatis  positum  Catechumenum ;  ita  ut  si  supervixerit,  ad 
episcopum  eum  perducat,  ut  per  manus  impositionem  perfici  possit." 

(9)  Concil.  Arelat.  lb.  p.  2G5.  De  Afris,  quod  propria  lege  sua 
utuntur  ut  rebaptizent,  placuitut  si  ad  ecclesiam  aliquis  de  hseresi 
venerit,  interrogent  eum  symbolum;  et  si  perviderint  eum  in  Patre, 
et  Filio,  et  Spiritu  Sancto  esse  baptizatum,  manus  ei  tantum  impo- 
natur  ut  accipiat  Spiritum  Sanctum. 

3 


26 

tion.  The  eighth  canon  (10)  decreed  that  the  Nova- 
nan  clergy  who  returned  to  the  Catholic  Church  should 
continue  to  hold  their  official  rank,  without  re-bapti- 
zation  or  re-ordination.  While  the  nineteenth  canon, 
(11)  on  the  other  hand,  commanded  that  the  Paulian- 
ists  should  be  rebaptized,  and  that  their  clergy  should 
not  retain  their  ministerial  station,  without  a  regular  ordi- 
nation by  the  bishop  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Now  these 
canons  evidently  prove  that  the  decision  of  the  Council 
of  Aries  was  adopted  and  confirmed  by  the  Nicene  Coun- 
cil. For  the  Paulianists  had  so  corrupted  the  faith,  as  to 
omit  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  even  in  the  form  of  Baptism, 
while  the  Novatians  had  preserved  the  pure  doctrine  of 
Christ ;  and  therefore  the  difference  of  the  treatment 
which  their  respective  Baptisms  and  ordinations  received 
at  the  hand  of  the  Council,  is  plainly  to  be  referred  to  this 
distinction.     It  is  indeed  insisted  on  the  other  side,  that 

(10)  Concil.  Nic.  Gen.  Hard.  Tom.  l.p.  326,  Ca7i.  VIII.  De  his  qui  se 
nominant  Catharos,  id  est,  mundos,  si  aliquando  venerint  ad  eccle- 
siam  catholicam,  placuit  sancto  et  magno  concilio,  ut  impositionem 
manus  accipicntes,  sic  inclero  permaneant.  Ha3C  autem  prae  omnibus 
eos  scriptis  convenit  profiteri,  quod  catholicce  et  apostolica;  ecclesiae 
dogmata  suscipiant  et  sequantur ;  id  est,  et  bigamis  se  communicare, 
et  his  qui  in  persecutione  prolapsi  sunt,  erga  quos  et  spatia  constituta 
sunt,  ettemporadefinita:  ita  ut  ecclesiae  catholicse  et  apostolicoe  pla- 
cita  sequantur  in  omnibus.  Ubicumque  vero,  sive  invicis,  sive  incivi- 
tatibusipsi  soli  reperti  fuerint  ordinali;  qui  inveniuntur  in  clero,  in 
eodem  habitu  perseverent.  Ubi  autem  catholicse  ecclesiae  episcopo 
vel  presbytero  conslituto,  quidam  ex  illis  adveniunt,  certum  est  quod 
episcopus  ecclesise  habebit  episcopi  dignitatem.  Is  autem  qui  nomi- 
natur  apud  eos  episcopus,  honorem  presbyterii  possidebit,  nisi  placue- 
rit  forte  episcopo,  nominis  eum  honore  censeri.  Si  vero  hoc  ei  mi- 
nime  placuerit,  providebit  ei  aut  chorepiscopatus,  aut  presbyterii  lo- 
cum, ut  in  clero  prorsus  esse  videater;  ne  in  una  civitate  duo  episcopi 
probentur  exsistere. 

(11)  lb.  Can.  XEX.  De  Paulianistis  ad  ecclesiam  catholicam  con- 
fogientibus,  definitio  prolata  est,  ut  baplizentur  omnimodis.  Si  qui 
autem  de  his  prseterito  tempore  fuerint  in  clero,  siquidem  immaculati 
et  irreprehensibiles  apparuerint,  baptizati  ordinentur  ab  episcopo  ec- 
clesiae catholicae.  Quod  si  discussio  incongruos  eos  invenerit,  abji- 
ci  tales  convenit.  Similiter  autem  et  de  diaconissis,  et  omnino  de  his 
quisubregulaversantur.hoec  forma  servabitur.  Meminimus  autem 
de  diaconissis,  quae  in  eodem  habitu  esse  probantur,  quod  non  habeant 
aliquam  manus  impositionem,  et  ideo  modis  omnibus  eas  inter  laicas 
deputari. 


27 

this  difference  was  owing  to  quite  another  matter :  viz. 
that  the  Novatians  had  a  regular  episcopal  ordination, 
which  the  Paulianistshad  not.  But  this  assertion  is  pe- 
culiarly unfortunate,  being  directly  contrary  to  the  facts 
of  history:  for  Novatian,  the  author  of  the  Novatians, 
had  procured  himself  to  be  consecrated  through  fraud  and 
impiety,  and  was  never  admitted  b}"-  the  Church  to  be 
any  thing  better  than  a  false  and  counterfeit  bishop.* 
Whereas  Paul  of  Samosata,  the  father  of  the  Paulianists, 
was  an  undoubted  bishop  of  the  Catholic  Church,  at  the 
time  when  the  Council  of  Antioch  proceeded  to  depose 
him.  The  truth  is,  that  strictly  considered,  neither  of 
these  sects  had  anything  more  than  the  empty  form  of 
ordination.  Novatian  never  had  the  reality  by  reason  of 
his  schism,  and  Paul  lost  what  he  once  had,  by  reason  of 
his  heresy.  The  ecclesiastical  defect  of  the  Novatians, 
however,  was  cured  by  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church 
in  the  Nicene  Council ;  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  being 
invoked  by  repentance  and  prayer,  and  sealed  in  the  act 
of  Confirmation. 

My  next  reference  is  to  the  Council  of  Carthage,  held 
A.  D.  348,  in  which  the  question  was  put  to  the  assem- 
bled bishops.  Whether  he  who  has  once  been  baptized 
with  water  in  the  name  of  the  blessed  Trinity,  could  be 
lawfully  baptized  again.  "  And  all  the  bishops  answer- 
ed ;  Far,  far,  be  it  from  us.  We  adjudge  all  re-baptiza- 
tions  to  be  unlawful,  and'  hostile  to  the  true  faith,  and 
Catholic  discipline."  (12) 

The  well-known  narrative  of  Ruffinns,  Socrates,  and 
Sozomen,  concerning  the  Baptism  of  some  boys  in  play, 

*  This  is  largely  proved  by  Bingham,  in  his  Scholast.  Hist,  of  Lay- 
Baptism,  Part  2,  p.  431,452,  &c.  of  last  English  edition. 

(12)  Concil.  Carth.  in  Appen.  Optati  Milev. p.  201.  "Ergo,  si  vobis 
placet,  consideremiis  primum  titulum  rebaptizationis:  unde  sanctitatem 
vestram  postulo,  ut  mentis  vestrce  placita  producatis  ad  descendentem 
in  aquam  et  interrogatum  in  Trinitate  secundCim  Evangelii  fidem  et 
apostolorum  doctrinam,  et  confessam  bonam  conscientiam  in  Deum, 
de  resurrectione  Jesu  Christi,  si  liceat  iterum  interrogari  in  eadem 
fide,  et  in  aqui  iterum  intingi.  Universi  episcopi  dixerunt :  Absit,  ab- 
sit.  Illicitasesse  sancimus  rebaptizationes,  et  satis  esse  alienum  a  sin- 
cera  fide  et  catholica  disciplina. 


28 

may  next  be  mentioned,  since  whatever  pains  Dr.  Water- 
land  and  others  may  have  taken  to  ridicule  it,  there  is  no 
legitimate  mode  of  displacing  it  from  the  authentic  facts 
of  ecclesiastical  history.  (13)  It  seems  that  the  celebrated 
Athanasius,  when  a  boy,  engaged  with  a  company  of  his 
young  associates  in  a  representation  of  divine  worship. 
The  part  of  the  bishop  was  performed  by  Athanasius 
himself,  in  the  course  of  which  he  undertooif  to  adminis- 
ter Baptism  to  several  children.  The  place  whicli  ihey 
had  chosen  was  on  the  sea  shore,  in  full  view  of  the  re- 
sidence of  Alexander,  the  bishop  of  Alexandria ;  who, 
happening  to  look  towards  the  sea  at  the  time,  soon  be- 
came interested  in  watching  their  operations.  He  then 
sent  for  them,  examined  minutely,  in  the  presence  of  his 
clergy,  all  that  had  been  said  and  done  ;  and  finding  that 
every  part  of  the  sacred  office  had  been  correctly  used, 
and  with  the  simplicity  of  good  intention,  both  he  and 
his  presbyters  agreed   that  the  children  should  not   be 


(13)  Sozom.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  2,  C.  17,  p.  381.  Publicum  ac  solemne 
festum  ingente  pompa  quotannis  celebrant  Alexandrini,  eo  die  quo 
Pelrus  ipsorum  olim  episcopus  mart)'rium  coiisummavit.  Hiinc  igitur 
diem  festum  aliquando  celebrans  Alexander,  qui  tunc  ipsorum  erat 
episcopus,  peractis  missarum  solemnibus;  (Gr.  rm  KtiTov^yta.i')  expecta- 
bat  eos  qui  unb.  cum  ipso  pransuri  erant.  Cumque  solus  esset,  oculos 
convertit  ad  mare.  lUic  visis  eminus  pueris,  qui  in  littore  ludentes 
episcopi  officium  sacrosque  ecclesice  ritus  exprimebant,  quamdiu 
quidem  scenam  illam  absque  periculo  esse  animadvertit,  delectaba- 
tur  spectaculo,  nee  mediocrem  ex  ea  re  capiebat  voliiptatem.  Post- 
quam  vero  arcana  quoque  mysteria  exprimere  ca-perunt,  perlurbatus 
est  animo,  vocatisque  ad  se  primoribus  Cleri,  pueros  ostendit.  Cum- 
que eos  comprehensos  adduci  jussisset,  sciscitatus  est  ex  iis,  quisnana 
lusus  ipsorum  esset,  et  quid  in  eo  dicerent,  quidve  agerent.  Illi  metu 
pcrculsi,  initio  quidem  negarunt.  Sed  cum  Alexander  quaestioni  in- 
staret,  confessi  sunt  episcopum  ac  prsesulem  fuisse  ipsis  Athanasium  ; 
et  quosdam  pueros  qui  nondum  mysteriis  initiati  fuissent,  ab  illo  esse 
baplizatos.  Hos  Alexander  accurate  interrogavit,  quidnam  ipsis 
dixisset  fecissetve  ludi  illius  episcopus ;  et  quid  ipsi  respondissent, 
quidve  edocti  essent.  Cumque  omnia  juxta  ordinem  ecclesiasticum 
exacte  in  illis  servata  esse  deprehendisset,  communicato  consilio  cum 
sacerdotibus  quos  circa  se  habebat,  censuit  non  rebaptizandos  esse 
eos,  qui  in  simplicitale  divinam  gratiam  semel  percipere  meruissent. 
Reliqua  vero  quae  a  solis  sacerdotibus  baptismum  tradentibus  admin- 
istrari  fas  est,  in  illis  supplevit. 


29 

rebaptized,  but  should  have  the  work  perfected  in  Confir- 
mation. 

About  A.  D.  36S,  Epiphanius,  the  bishop  of  Cyprus, 
complains  strongly  of  some  "audacions  men,  who,  under 
the  pretext  of  zeal  for  the  Catholics,  having  raised  up  a 
private  faction  to  themselves,  presume  to  rebaptize  those 
who  come  to  them  from  the  Arians,  contrary  to  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Church,  and  the  decree  of  a  General  Council." 
(14)     It  is  a  short  rebuke,  but  full  of  instruction. 

I  pass  next  to  Basil,  the  bishop  of  Cesarea,  A.  D.  370, 
whose  authority,  strangely  enough,  is  claimed  by  Dr. 
Waterland  and  others,  although  I  think  it  sufficiently  man- 
ifest that  it  belongs,  of  right,  to  our  own  side.  (15)  "The 
heretics  called  Encratitse,"  saith  he,  "the  Saccophori 
and  the  Apoctitas,  are  not  under  the  same  rnle  as  the 
Novatians,  because  a  canon  has  been  oftablished  con- 
cerning these,  while  the  others  have  been  passed  by  in 
silence.  But  we  rebaptize  those  heretics.  And  if,  with 
you,  rebaptization  is  forbidden,  as  it  is  among  the  Ro- 
mans, by  reason  of  a  certain  economy,  let  our  argument  at 
least  be  acknowledged  sound.  For  the  heresy  of  these 
sects  is  the  offspring  of  the  Marcionites,  who  abhor  mar- 
riage, and  refuse  wine,  and  say  that  the  creature  of  God 
is  corrupt ;  therefore  we  do  not   admit   them   into  the 

(14)  Epiph.  adv.  Hxres.  Lib  III.  Tom.  II.  C.  XIII.  (p.  1095)  "AUi 
qui  audaciores  videntur,  ex  Catholicorum  partibus,  privata  sibi  fac- 
tione  conflata,  prseter  Ecclesisc  consuetudinem,  ac  citra  generalis 
Concilii  deci'etum,  eos,  qui  ab  Arianis  ad  suas  partes  transeuut,  iter- 
um  baptizare  nihil  verenlur. 

(15)  Basil.  0pp.  Tom.3.p.  296, Ep.  199.  Can.2.  Encratitae,et  Sacco- 
phori, et  Apotactitse  non  subjiciuntur  eidem  rationi  cui  et  Novatiani, 
quiade  illis  editus  Canon,  etsi  varius  ;  quse  autem  ad  istos  pertinent, 
silentio  sunt  praetermissa.  Nos  autem  una  ratione  tales  rebaptizamus. 
Quod  si  apud  vos  prohibita  est  rebaptizatio,  sicut  et  apud  Romanos, 
oeconomiES  alicujus  gratia,  nostra  tamen  ratio  vim  obtineat.  Quoniam 
enim  veluti  germen  Marcionistarum  est  eorum  hseresis  ut  qui  nup- 
tias  abhorreant,  et  vinum  aversentur,  ac  dicant  Dei  creaturam  inqui- 
natam  esse,  idcirco  ipsos  in  ecclesiam  non  admittimus,  nisi  in  nostrum 
baptisma  fuerint baptizati.  Etenim  ne  dicant:  In  Patrem  et  Filium 
et  Spiritum  sanctum  baptizati  sumus,  qui  videlicet  Deum  esse  ma- 
lorum  effectorem  existimant,  exemplo  Marcionis  et  relinquaruni 
hasresum." 

3* 


30 

Church  until  they  are  baptized  with  our  Baptism.  For 
they  cannot  say,  We  are  baptized  in  the  Father,  and 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  believe  that  God  is 
the  Author  of  evils,  according  to  Marcion  and  the  other 
heretics."  Here  it  is  evident  that  Basil  admitted  the  No- 
vatians  without  rebaptization,  on  the  ground  of  the  ca- 
nons, and  that  he  rejected  the  heretics  who  had  departed 
from  the  outer  form  of  Baptism,  thus  putting  the  differ- 
ence where  it  ought  to  be  placed,  on  the  confession  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  in  the  s:icred  words  dictated  by  our  Lord 
himself  for  its  rightful  administration. 

But  there  is  another  passage  in  this  author,  from  which 
very  opposite  conclusions  have  been  drawn  :  (16)  Where 

(16)  Ibid,   Ep.   188,    Canon.   Primi,  Amphilochto.    Tom.  3,  p.  268. 
"Anliqui  enim  illud   baptisma  suscipiendum  putavere,  quod  niliil  a 
fide  recedit;  unde«alias  quidem  hcereses,  alia  schismata,  alias   para- 
synagogas  appellarunt.     Hoereses  quidem  eos,  qui  peiiitus  resecti  sunt, 
et  in  ipsa  fide  abalieiiati;  schismata  vero,  eos,  qui  propter  ecclesias- 
ticas  quasdam  causas  el  quasstiones  inter  utramque  partem  non  insan- 
abiles  dissident;  paras)'nagogas   autem,  convenlus  illos   qui  ab  im- 
morigeris  presbyteris  aut  episcopis  et  a  populis  disciplinte  expertibus 
fiunt:  velutsi  quis  in  delicto  depreliensus,  a  ministerio  arceatur,  nee 
se  canonibus  summittat,  sed  sibi  principatum  et  ministerium  vendicet, 
at  nonnuUi  una  cum  eo,  relicta  catholica  Ecclesia,  discedant ;  hoc 
dicitur  parasjmagoga.     Schisma  autem  est,  de  pcenitentia  ab  iis   qui 
ex  Ecclesia  sunt,  dissentire. — Visum  est  ergo  antiquis  hosreticorum 
quidem  baptisma  penitus  rejicere,  schismaticorum  vero,  ut  adhuc  ex 
Ecclesia  existentium,  admittere ;  eos  tandem  qui  sunt  in  parsynagogis, 
justa  pcenitentia  et  animadversione  emendatos  rursus  Ecclesice  con- 
jungere;  adeo  ut  ssepe  et  ii  qui  in  graducoUocati  una.  cum  rebellibus 
abierant,  postquam  pcenitentiam  egerint,  in   eundem   ordinem  admit- 
tantur. — Cseterum  antiquis  visum  est,  Cypriano  dico,  et  nostro  Firmi- 
liano,hos  omnes  uni  calculo  subjicere,  Catharos,  et  Encratitas,  et  Hy- 
droparastatas,   propterea  quod  principium  quidem  separationis  per 
schisma  factum  fuerat :  qui  autem  ab  Ecclesia  se  separaverant,  non 
amplius  habebant  in  se  gratiam  Spiritus  Sancti:  defecerat  enim  commu- 
nicatio,  interrupta  continuatione.   Qui  enim  primi  recesserant,  ordina- 
ationem  a  patribus  habebant,  et  per  manuum  eorum  inpositionem  ha- 
bebant donum  spirituale;  qui  autem  resecti  sunt,  laici  efl^ecti,  nee  bapti- 
zandi  nee  ordinandi  habebant  potestatem,  ut  qui  non  possent  amplius 
Spiritus  sancti  gratiam  aliis  prccbere,  a  qua  ipsi  exciderant.  Quare  eos, 
qui  ab  ipsorum  partibus  stabant,  tanquama  laicis  baptizatos,  jusserunt 
vero  Ecclesise  baplismate  ad  Ecclesiam  venientes  expurgari.  Sed  quo- 
niam  nonnullis  Asiaticis  omnino  visum  est  eorum  baptisma,  pluribus  con- 
sulendi  causa,  suscipiendum  esse,  scscipiatur. — Encratitarum  autem 


31 

after  laying  down  the  general  rule  of  the  Church  to  be  in 
favour  of  rejecting  the  Baptism  of  Heretics,  while  that  of 
schismatics  and  separatists  was  admitted,  he  proceeds  to 
speak  of  the  opinions  of  Cyprian  and  Firmilian,  and  seems 
to  consider  that  they  repudiated  the  Baptisms  of  all  who 
were  not  in  the  Church,  because  such  persons  had  lost  the 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  had  become  laymen.,  and  there- 
fore could  not  ofier  to  others  the  grace  which  they  had 
lost  themselves.  Tlie  writers  who  deny  the  validity  of 
Lay-Baptism  take  this  passage  as  full  proof,  that  the  real 
point  of  dispute  between  Stephen  and  Cyprian  turned  not 
upon  the  effect  of  heresy  and  schism  in  annulling  Baptism, 
but  upon  the  question  oi  orders,  as  it  affected  the  claims 
of  the  clergy  who  are  supposed  to  have  administered  the 
sacrament;  and  therefore  they  deny  that  the  validity  of 
Lay-Baptism  was  involved  either  in  that  controversy, 
or  in  the  subsequent  canons  of  Aries  and  Nice. 

All  this,  however,  seems  to  my  mind  to  be  nothing  bet- 
ter than  a  piece  of  ingenious  speculation.  For  it  cannot  be 
said  that  B:isil  pretends  to  any  special  or  peculiar  know- 
ledge of  the  controversy  between  Cyprian  and  Stephen. 
He  lived  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  too  late  for  that; 
and  as  no  such  reasoning  appears  in  the  writings  of  Cy- 
prian, or  of  Firmilian,  or  of  any  other  of  the  fathers  when 
speaking   of  them,  and  as  Basil  does  not  profess  to   give 

facinus  oportet  nos  intelligere — Existimo  itaque,  quoniam  nihil  de 
illis  aperti  dictum  est,  eorum  baptisma  a  nobis  rejiciendum  esse:  ac 
si  quis  ab  eisacceperit,  accedentem  adEcclesiam  baptizandum.  Quod 
si  hoc  generali  oeconomice  impedimento  erit,  rursus  consuetudine 
utendum  est,  et  sequi  oportet  patres,  qui  quoe  ad  nos  pertinent,  dis- 
pensaverunt.  Vereor  enim,  ne,  dum  eos  volumus  ad  baptizandum  tar- 
dos  facere,  impedimento  propter  sententise  severitatem  simus  iis  qui 
salvantur.  Quod  si  illi  nostrum  baptismum  servant,  hoc  nos  non  mo- 
veat  ;  neque  enim  debemus  par  pari  referre,  sed  accuratoe  canonum 
observationi  servire.  Omni  autem  ratione  statuatur,  ut  ii  qui  ab  il- 
lorum  baptisrao  veniunt,  ungantur  coram  fidelibus  videlicet,  et  ita 
demum  ad  mysteria  accedant.  Scio  autem,  fratres  Izoinum  et  Satur- 
ninum,  qui  erant  ex  illorum  ordine,  in  episcoporum  cathedram  a  no- 
bis esse  susceptos.  Quare  eos  qui  illorum  ordini  conjuncli  sunt,  non 
possumus  amplius  ab  Ecclesia  separare:  qui  scilicet  communionis 
cum  ipsis  quasi  canonem  quemdam,  episcopos  suscipiendo,  edideri- 
mus. 


32 

any  new  view  of  their  sentiments,  we  can  only,  in  com- 
mon justice,  suppose  him  to  be  deUvering  his  own  opin- 
ion. 

Now  while  I  freely  admit  that  he  here  intimates  his 
personal  judgment,  in  terms  favourable  to  the  other  side, 
yet  this  only  adds  strength  to  our  argument  when  it  is  ob- 
served that  he  yields  this  judgment  to  the  decision  of 
the  Church,  for  he  proceeds  to  say,  in  the  plainest  lan- 
guage, that  since  the  Asiatics  thought  fit  to  receive  such 
Baptisms, f/ie  canon  and  the  cnslommust  be  respected.  He 
then  adds  that  although,  in  his  opinion,  the  Encratitas 
ought  not  to  be  received  without  rebaptization,  being 
heretics,  yet  even  in  their  case  he  was  willing  to  follow 
the  custom  of  the  fathers,  and  this  the  more  readily,  in- 
asmuch as  two  of  that  very  sect  had  been  admitted  into 
the  chair  of  the  bishops;  which  admission  he  regarded 
as  a  sort  of  canon  on  the  subject.  On  the  whole,  there- 
fore, the  testimony  of  Basil  is  conclusive  to  prove,  not, 
indeed,  his  own  individual  conviction  in  favour  of  Lay- 
Baptism,  but,  what  is  much  more  important,  his  resolu- 
tion to  abide,  in  action,  by  the  custom  of  the  Church.  If 
such  were  the  disposition  of  all  men  in  our  own  age, 
there  would  be  no  inducement  to  revive  so  old  a  contro- 
versy. 

Next  after  Basil,  the  order  of  chronology  brings  us  to 
Optatus,  the  bishop  of  Milevi,  A.  D.  370,  whose  work 
upon  the  schism  of  the  Donatists,  contains  many  positive 
declarations  in  support  of  the  principle,  that  the  minister 
is  of  the  order  and  not  of  the  essence  of  Baptism,  and 
hence  he  insists  on  the  unlawfulness  and  impiety  of  re- 
baptization.    Thus  for  example,  (17)  after  quoting  the 

(17.)  Optaf,  de  Schism.  Donat.  Lib.  Y.  C.  III.  p.  82.  Sic  enim  ipse 
Dominiis  prascepitdicendo  ;  Ite,  haptizate  omnes  gcntes,  iii  nomine  Pa- 
iris,  et  Filii,  et  Spirilus  Sandi.  De  hoc  lavacro  dixit :  Qui  semel  lo- 
tus est,  non  habet  necessitatem  iterum  lavandi. — Absit  enim,  ut  unquam 
exorcizemus  sanum  iidelem;  absit,  ut  jam  lotum  revocemus  ad  I'on- 
tem:  absit,  ut  in  Spiritum  sanctum  peccemus  ;  cui  facinori  in  prse- 
senti  et  futuro  soeculo  indulgentia  denegatur :  absit,  ut  iteremus  quod 
semel  est,  aul  duplicemus  quod  unum  est :  sic  enim  scriptum  est,  Apos- 
tolo  dicente  :   Unus  Deus,  unus  Christus,  una  fides,  una  tinctio. 


33 

declaration  of  our  Lord  to  the  apostle  Peter:  Ht  that  is 
washed  hath  no  need  of  being  washed  again,  (for  so  it  is 
rendered  by  Optatus,)  he  expressly  asserts  that  the 
Saviour  spake  in  reference  to  Baptisni.  "Far  be  it  from 
us,"  continues  he,  "that  we  should  exorcise  a  true  believer. 
Far  be  it  from  us  that  he  who  is  already  washed  should 
be  called  again  to  the  fountain.  Far  be  it  from  us  that  we 
should  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  which  crime  there 
is  no  forgiveness,  either  here  or  hereafter.  Far  be  it  from 
us  to  repeat  what  can  be  but  once,  or  to  reduplicate  what 
is  alone ;  for  thus  it  is  written,  One  God,  One  Christ, 
one  Faith,  one  BaptismP 

Again,  (\^)  he  argues  strongly  against  the  idea  that 
the  privilege  of  baptism,  which  is  divine,  can  be  given 
by  man.  "  God  cleanses,  not  the  minister.  The  Psalmist 
does  not  say  to  the  Almighty,  Appoint  a  person  by 
whom  I  may  bz  washed,  but  Wash  thoume.  None  can 
cleanse  away  the  stains  of  the  mind,  but  He  who  cre- 
ated it." 

And  again,  (19)  Optatus  observes,  that  "'the  Saviour 
commanded  in  ivhat  the  nations  should  be  baptized,  but 
by  ivhom  they  should  be  baptized,  he  left  discretionary. 
He  did  not  say  to  the  apostles.  Let  no  one  baptize  but 
yourselves  only.  And  therefore  whoever  baptizes  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
fulfils  the  work  of  the  apostles." 

(18)  lb.  84.  Concedite  Deo  prsestare  quae  sua  sunt.  Non  enim 
potest  id  munus  ab  homine  dari,  quod  diviiuim  est.  Si  sic  putatis, 
prophetarum  voces,  et  Dei  promissa  inanire  conienditis,  quibus  pro- 
batur  quia  Deus  lavat,  non  homo.  Adest  contra  vos  David  propheta, 
qui  ait  in  Psalmo  L.  Lavabis  me  et  super  nivem  dealbabor:  item  in  eodem 
psalmo  :  Deus  lava  me  ab,  injustltia  mea,  et  a  delicto  men  miinda  me  : 
Lava  me,  dixit;  non  dixit,  Elige  per  quern  laver. — Dignamini  ut  vel 
prophetae  vos  vincant,  vel  sic  agnoscite  quia  non  lavat  homo,  sed 
Deus.  Quamdiu  dicitis  :  Qui  non  habet  quod  def,  quomodo  dat?  Videte 
Dorainum  esse  datorera,  videte  Deum  unumquemque  mundare  :  sor- 
des  enim  et  maculas  mentis  lavare  non  potest,  nisi  Deus  qui  ejusdem 
fabricator  est  mentis. 

(19)  lb.  86.  Nam  in  quo  baptizarentur  gentes,  a  Salvatore  mandatum 
est :  per  quem  baptizarentur,  nulla  exceptione  discretum  est.  Non 
dixit  apostolis  :  Vos  facite,  alii  nonfaciant :  quisquis  in  nomine  Patris 
et  Fiiii  et  Spiritus  Sancti  baptizaverit,  apostolorum  opus  implevit, 


34 

One  passage  more  shall  close  my  references  to  this 
author,  in  which  (20)  he  considers  St.  Paul  as  disclaim- 
ing any  part  in  the  power  of  baptizing,  and  attributing 
the  whole  to  the  Lord  ;  where  the  apostle  saith.  So  then 
neither  is  he  that  planteth,  ant/thing,  neither  he  that 
watereth,  but  God  who  giveth  the  increase. 

About  the  same  time  with  Optatus,  flourished  Am- 
brose, bishop  of  Milan,  who  clearly  adopts  and  sanctions 
the  idea  so  often  occurring  amongst  the  fathers,  that  in  a 
certain  sense,  the  laity  are  priests.  Thus,  in  answer  to 
the  question,  (21)  why  David  not  only  ate  the  shew? 
bread  himself,  but  also  gave  it  to  those  that  were  with 
him,  (wliich,  as  our  Saviour  remarked,  it  was  not  lawful 
to  eat  but  for  the  priests  alone)  Ambrose  saith,  that  "it 
may  have  been  because  we  ought  all  to  imitate  the  life  of 
the  priesthood,  or  because  all  the  sons  of  the  Church  are 
priests,  since  loe  offer  ourselves  to  God  a  spiiHtiial  sa- 
crifice.^' It  is  obvious  to  the  slightest  reflection,  that  this 
idea  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  lay  administrations,  so 
that  he  who  consistently  applies  it  can  hardly  doubt  their 
validity,  however  defective  they  may  be  in  regularity 
or  order. 

The  year  372  is  assigned  as  the  date  of  the  Council  of 
Laodicea,  in  which  some  additional  specifications  were 
laid  down    upon   the   subject.     Thus,  (22)  the   converts 

(20)  Optat.  de  Schism.  Donat.  Lib.  5,  Chap.  VII.,  p.  87.  Denique  beatus 
apostolus  Paulus,  ut  vestram  prassumptionem  tumoremque  compesce- 
ret,  ne  se  oestimet  operarius  baptismatis,  aut  habere  dominium,  aut  de 
tanto  isto  munere  particulam  sibi  aliquam  vindicare,  indicans  quia 
totum  Dei  est,  sic  ait :  Neque  qui  plantat,  neque  qui  rigat,  est  aliquid; 
sed  iolus  Deus,  qui  ad  incrementa  perducit. 

(21)  S.  Ambrosii  Expos.  Evang.  secundum  Luc.  L.  5,  §  33,  0pp. 
Tom.  1,  p.  1364.  Quomodo  autem  ille  observator  Legis  atque  defen- 
sor, panes  et  ipse  manducavit,  et  dedit  iis  qui  secum  erant,  quos  non 
licebat  manducare  nisi  tantummodo  sacerdotibus,  nisi  ut  per  illam 
demonstraret  figuram,  sacerdotalem  cibum  ad  usum  transiturum 
esse  populorum'?  Sive  quod  omnes  vitam  sacerdotalem  debemus  imi- 
tari :  sive  quia  omnes  filii  Ecclesiae  sacerdotes  sunt,  offerentes  «osme- 
tipsos  Deo  hostias  spiritales. 

(22)  Concil.  Laod.  Can.  7  andS.  Condi.  Gen.  Hard.  torn.  I. p.  782.  Nova- 
tianos  veletiam  Quartodecimanos,quos  Grajci  Tessaradecatites  appel- 
lant,— sed  et  catechumenos  illorum  vel  fideles  non  recipi,  priusquam 


35 

from  the  Novatians  and  Quartodecimans  are  ordered  to 
be  received  with  the  acknowledgeriient  of  their  error,  by 
tlie  imposition  of  hands ;  while  those  from  the  Cata- 
phrygians  are  directed  to  be  baptized,  even  though  they 
might  have  been  previously  reckoned  among  their  chief 
clergy.  Now  the  two  sects  first  mentioned  were  ortho- 
dox in  their  administration  of  Baptism  ;  while  the  Cata- 
phrygians  were  a  multifarious  tribe  of  heretics,  who  had 
depraved  the  form  of  the  sacrament,  in  obedience  to  the 
blasphemous  absurdities  of  Montanus  and  Maximilla.* 

A  name  of  high  authority  amongst  the  fathers,  is  that  of 
the  celebrated  Jerome,  whose  judgment  upon  the  canon 
of  Scripture  is  adopted  in  one  of  the  Articles  of  the 
Church.  The  year  currently  assigned  to  him,  is  A.  D. 
374.  Nothing  is  more  express  than  his  decision  upon  the 
doctrine  of  the  priesthood  of  the  laity,  (23)  which  he  con- 
siders conferred,  as  it  were,  in  their  Baptism.  He  also  as- 
serts distinctly,  the  legality  of  laymen  baptizing,  in  cases 
of  necessity,  justifying  it  on  the  ground,  that  what  a  man 
receives,  he  can  give  to  another.  (24)  And  he  defends 
elaborately  the  custom  of  the  Church  in  admitting  the 
converts  from  heresy  without  rebaptization,  saying  that 
in  the  controversy  betvveen  Cyprian  and  Stephen,  the 
bishop  of  Carthage  was  in  error.  (25) 

condemnerent  omnem  hasrisim  plenissim6,  ante  omnia  autem,  earn  in 
qua  detinebantur.  Et  nunc  qui  apud  eos  fideles  dicuntur,  symbolum 
fidei  doceantur,  atque  ita  unctos  sancto  chrismate,  divino  Sacramento 
communicare  conveniet. 

Ejusdam  Concil.  Can.  8.  Eos  qui  convertuntur  ab  hoeresi,  quae  dicitur 
Calaphrygarum,  seque  in  cleros  constitutos  existimant,  quamvis  mag- 
ni  dicantur,  hujusmodi  cum  omni  diligentia  catechizari  oportet,  et 
baptizari  at)  Ecclesiae  Catholicse  episcopis  et  presbyteris. 

•  Epiph.  de  Haeres.  Tom.  1,  Lib.  2,  p.  402. 

(23)  S.  Hieron.  adv.  Lucifer.  0pp.  Tom.  2,  p.  94.  A.  Sacerdotium 
laici,  id  est,  baptisma, — scriptum  est  enim  :  Regnum  quippe  nos  et  sa- 
cerdotes  Deo  Patri  suo  fecit :  et  iterum,  Gentem  sanctam,  regale  sa- 
cerdotium, populum  acquisitum. 

(24)  lb.  p.  96,  D.  Inde  venit,  ut  sine  chrismate  et  episcopi  jussione, 
neque presbyter,  neque  diaconus,  jus  habet  baptizandi.  Quod  frequenter 
si  tamen  necessitas  cogit,  scimus  etiam  licere  laicis.  Ut  enim  ac- 
cipitquis,  ilaut  dare  potest. 

(26)Ib.  p.  100,  D.  Conatus  est  beatus  Cyprianus  contritos  lacus  fugere 


36 

He  then  proceeds  to  say  that  the  custom  and  law  of  the 
Ghurch  on  this  ■subject  were  derived  from  tradition.  And 
he  connects  this  tradition  with  tiie  apostles  by  referring 
to  the  numerous  heresies  which  already  existed  in  their 
own  day,  of  which  the  Epistles  and  the  Book  of  Revela- 
tions bore  abundant  testimony;  and  yet  there  is  no  in- 
stance in  which  we  read  of  their  being  rebaptized.  It  seems 
to  my  mind  a  singular  instance  of  the  force  of  prejudice, 
that  after  all  this,  and  much  more  evidence  of  Jerome's 
sentiments.  Dr.  Waterland,  following  the  example  of  his 
leaders  on  the  same  side,  should  question  the  character 
of  his  judgment,  merely  on  account  of  a  doubtful  passage 
occurring  in  the  same  part  of  his  works.  That  passage 
admits  of  two  interpretations.  The  one,  which  makes 
Jerome  consistent  with  himself,  explains  the  words  as 
not  expressing  his  own  opinion,  but  simply  as  opposing 
the  Luciferian  schismatics  by  an  argumentum  ad  homincm, 
which  proved  that  they  were  wrong,  even  on  their  own 
principle.  The  other  meaning,  for  which  these  writers 
so  strenuously  contend,  would  make  Jerome  contradict 
himself ;  and  therefore,  especially  in  the  cas&  of  an  au- 
thor so  distinguished  for  his  acuteness,  this  consideration 
alone  should  be  conclusive  against  it,  with  every  mind 
of  ordinary  candour. 


nee  bibere  de  aqua  aliena,  et  idcirco  hoRreticnrum  baptisma  reprobans, 
ad  Stephanum  tunc  Romance  urbis  episcopum,  qui  a  beato  Petro  vi- 
gesimus  sextus  fuit,  super  hac  re  Africanam  Sjnodum  direxit ;  sed  co- 
natus  ejus  frustra  fuit.  Denique  illi  ipsi  episcopi,  qui  rebaptizandos 
haereticos  cum  eo  statuerant,  adantiquam  consuetudinemrevoluti,  no- 
vum emisere  decretum.  Quid  facimus  ?  Ita  et  nobis  majores  nostri, 
et  illis  sui  tradidere  majores.  Sed  quid  de  posterioribus  loquar  ? 
Apostolis  adhuc  in  seculo  superstitibus,  adhuc  apud  Judseara  Christi 
sanguine  recenti,  phantasma  Domini  corpus  asserebatur.  Galatas  ad 
observationem  legis  traductos  apostolus  iterura  parturit :  Corinthios 
resurrectionem  carnis  non  credentes,  pluribus  argumentis  ad  verum 
iter  trahere  conatur,  &c. — Ad  eos  venio  haereticos,  qui  Evangelia  lania- 
verunt.  Saturninum  quendam  et  Ophitas  et  Choitam  et  Carpocratem 
et  CEeteras  pestes,  quorum  plurimi  vivente  adhuc  Joanne  Apostolo 
eruperunt,  et  tamen  nullum  eorum  legimus  rebaptizatum.  Quo- 
niam  autem  talis  viri  fecimus  mentionem,  de  Apocalypsi  quoque  ejus 
approbemus,  haereticis  sine  baptismate  debere  poenitentiam  con- 
cedi,  &c. 


/  37 

1  pass  from  Jerome,  however,  to  the  celebrated  Angus- 
tin  (26)  whose  authority  is  cited  in  another  of  our  Ar- 
ticles, and  whose  judgment  in  favour  of  the  vahdity  of  he- 
retical, schismatical,  and  lay  baptism,  is  admitted,  even 
by  the  most  determined  of  its  adversaries,  to  be  decided 
and  plain.  Thus  in  one  place  he  asserts,  that  those  men 
are  much  mistaken  who  accuse  the  Church  Cathoiic!  of  re- 
ceiving heretics  as  heretics,  because  she  does  not  rebaptize 
them  ;  since,  in  entering  the  Church,  they  become  Catho- 
lics. And  then  he  lays  down  the  maxim,  that  the  sacra- 
ments which  fihould  only  be  given  once,  cannot  lawfully 
be  re-iterated. 

Again,  (27)  he  saith,  that  although  it  was  granted  that 
heretics  had  the  Baptism  of  Christ,  yet  neither  heretics 
nor  schismatics  could  receive  the  Holy  Spirit,  until  they 
adhered  to  unity  and  charity.  The  same  judgment  he 
repeats  more  largely  in  anotlier  place,  where  he  extends 
it  to  the  Eucharist  also,  and  with  the  same  limita- 
tion. (28) 

Again,  (29)  Augustin  maintains  the  validity  of  lay- 
Baptism,  even  when  administered  without  necessity,  and 
therefore   unlawfully,   and    against  the   canons   of  the 

(26)  &  August,  ad  Dulcit.  §4.  0pp.  Tom.  ^p.  583.  MultCimque  illos 
falli  qui  putant  a  nobis  tales  istos  (sc.  hacreticos)  suscipi,  quales  sunt, 
quia  non  eos  rebaptizamus.  Quomodo  enim  tales  suscipiuntur  quales 
sunt,  cum  sint  haeretici,  et  ad  nos  transeundo  fianf.  Catholici  ?  Neque 
enim  propterea  corda  depravata  non  licet  corrigi,  quia  sacramenta  sC' 
mel  data  non  licet  iterari. 

(27)  S.  August.  Sermo  269,  0pp.  Tom.  5,  p.  762,  D.  Nee  immerito 
recte  intelligitur,  quamvis  ipsos  baptismum  Christi  fateamur,  htereli- 
cos  non  accipere  vel  schismaticos  Spiritum  Sanctum,  nisi  dum  com- 
pagini  adha;serint  unitatis  per  consortium  caritatis. 

(28)  lb.  De  civitat.  Del,  C.  25,  §  2.  Tom.  7,  p.  488.  Hi  sunt  autem 
qui  banc  liberationem,  nee  omnibus  habentibus  sacramentum  bap- 
tismatis  et  corporis  Christi,  sed  solis  Catholicis,  quamvis  male  viven- 
tibus  pollicentur :  quia  non  solo,  inquiunt,  sacramento,  sed  re  ipsa 
manducaverunt  corpus  Christi,  «&c.  Ac  per  lioc  ha^retici  et  schismalici, 
ab  hujus  uniiate  corporis  separati,  possunt  idem  percipere  sacramen- 
tum, sed  non  sibi  utile,  imo  vero  etiam  noxium,  quo  judicentur  gra- 
viiis  quim  vel  tardiCis  liberenlur.  Non  sunt  quippe  in  vinculo  pacis, 
quod  illo  exprimitur  sacramento. 

(29)  lb.  Contra  Parmen.  Lib.  2,  §  29,  Tom.  9,  p.  29.  Quamquam  et- 
si  laicus  aliquis  pereunti  dederit  necessitate  compulsus  quod  c<im 

4 


38 

Church.  His  words  are  these  :  "for  aUhough  even  a  lay- 
man should  give  it  (Baptism)  to  a  person  in  extremity,  I 
know  not  whether  any  one  could  say  religiously  that  it 
ought  to  be  repeated.  If  he  does  it  whhout  any  necessi- 
ty, it  is  an  usurpation  of  another's  office;  but  if  necessi- 
ty urges,  it  is  either  no  fault,  or  a  very  pardonable  one. 
But  if  it  be  usurped  without  any  necessity,  and  be  given 
by  any  one  to  anyone,  that  which  is  given  can  never  be 
said  not  to  have  been  given,  however  truly  it  may  be 
said  that  it  was  given  unlawfully.  The  unlawful  usur- 
pation is  corrected  by  recollection  and  repentance.  If 
not  corrected,  however,  the  thing  given  will  remain  to  the 
punishment  of  the  usurper,  either  of  hiin  who  unlawful- 
ly gave,  or  of  him  who  unlawfully  received  it,  but  iican 
7iever  be  accounted  as  not  given.'^ 

One  more  passage  from  this  eminent  father  shall  close, 
his  testimony  for  the  present.  (30)  "  There  is  yet  another 
question,"  saith  he,"  viz.  Whether  Baptism  can  be  given 
by  those  who  were  never  Christians ;  nor  is  anything  to 
be  rashly  affirmed  upon  this  point,  without  the  authority 
of  a  council  sufficient  to  pronounce  concerning  so  weighty 
a  matter.     But  of  those  who  are  separated  from  the  uni- 

ipse  acciperet,  quomodo  dandum  esset  addidicit,  nescio  an  pie  quis- 
quam  dixerit  esse  repetendurn.  Nulla  enim  cogente  necessitate 
si  fiat  alieni  mnneris  usurpatio  est:  si  autem  necessitas  urgeat,  aut 
nullum,  aut  veniale  delictum  est.  Sed  el  si  nulla  necessitate  usurpe- 
tur,  et  a  quolibet  cuilibet  detur,  quod  datum  fuerit  non  potest  dici  non 
datum,  quamvis  rect6  dici  possit  illicite  datum.  Illicitam  autem  usur- 
pationem  corrigit  reminiscentis  et  poenitentis  affectus.  Quod  si  non 
correxerit,  manebit  ad  pcenam  usurpatpris  quod  datum  est,  vel  ejus 
qui  illicite  dedit,  vel  ejus  qui  illicite  accepit ;  non  tamen  pro  non  dato 
habebitur. 

(30)  lb.  §  30.  Et  hajc  quidem  alia  quaestio  est,  utrum  et  ab  iis  qui 
numquam  fuerunt  Christiani  possit  baptismus  dari :  nee  aliquid  te- 
mere  inde  affirmandum  est  sine  auctoritate  tanti  concilii  quantum  tan- 
taB  rei  sufiicit.  De  iis  vero  qui  ab  Ecclesise  unitate  separati  sunt, 
nulla  jam  qutestio  est,  quin  et  habeant  et  dare  possint,  et  quin  perni- 
ciose  habeant  perniciose  que  tradant  extra  vinculum  pacis.  Hoc  enim 
jamin  ipsa  totius  orbis  unitate  discussum,  consideratum,  perfectum 
atque  firmatum  est. 

That  Augustin  agreed  with  Jerome  in  blaming  the  error  of  Cyprian, 
IS  plain  from  his  Book  Z>e  unico  Baptismo,  0pp.  Tom.  9,  p.  359,  §  22. 
Some  other  extracts  from  his  admirable  writings  will  be  given  in  the 
subsequent  quotations  from  authors  of  a  later  date. 


39 

ty  of  the  Church,  there  is  no  question  but  that  they  may 
and  can  give  it,  and  that  they  hold  it  and  give  it  inju- 
riously, without  the  bond  of  peace.  For  this  has  been 
long  discussed,  considered,  perfected  and  established, 
by  the  unity  of  the  whole  world. '^ 

Next  to  the  high  authority  of  St.  Augustin,  I  shall 
mention  the  eminent  Chrysostom,  ^vhose  fame,  neverthe- 
less, is  rather  to  be  attributed  to  his  oratorical  powers, 
than  to  his  skill  in  theological  casuistry,  since  his  works, 
voluminous  as  they  are,  consist,  for  the  most  part,  of  po- 
pidar  sevmons  or  Homilies,  which  were  probably  deliver- 
ed extempore,  and  taken  down  by  an  amanuensis,  as  we 
believe  was  the  case  with  the  catechetical  and  mystagogic 
discourses  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  and  with  many  other  re- 
lics of  antiquity.  This  fact  would  account,  to  a  conside- 
rable extent,  fortheir  energy,  their  inartificial  construction, 
their  lively  illustrations,  and  their  occasional  extravagance; 
in  which  respects  there  is  much  to  praise,  and  sometimes 
not  a  little  to  censure.  Plainly,  however,  it  would  be  un- 
reasonable to  look  to  such  productions  for  accurate  state- 
ments on  those  points  which  could  not  conduce  to  popular 
edification  ;  however  the  author  might  have  been  obliged 
to  decide,  if  consulted  by  the  clergy.  The  writers  on  the 
other  side,  claimChrysostomnotwithstanding,  asif  he  had 
unequivocally  declared  himself  against  the  decisions  of 
the  councils,  and  the  allowance  of  the  Church.  But  this 
he  has  not  done,  nor  can  I  see  anything  in  his  works 
which  touches  the  precise  point,  viz.  whether  Baptism,  ad- 
ministered in  the  proper  form  by  a  heretic  or  by  a  layman, 
without  absolute  necessity,  and  therefore  administered 
rather  against  than  by  the  authority  of  the  Church,  is  so 
far  null  and  void,  that  it  may  lawfully  be  administered 
again:  or,  in  other  words,  whether  the  minister  is  of  the 
essence,  or  only  of  the  orde7^  of  the  sacrament.  I  shall 
make  a  iew  extracts  to  shew  the  general  views  of  this 
distinguished  father,  by  which  it  will  appear  (31)  that  he 

(31)  0/;/j.  S.  Chrysost.  Tom.  b,  p.  333,  D.  Horn.  LX.  De  sumentibus 
indigne  divina  Hysteria.  "Verum  et  tu  laice,  cum  sacerdotem  videris 
offerentem,  nee  ut  sacerdotem  esse  putes  hoc  facientem,  sed^Christi 


40 

maintains  the  following  doctrines:  First,  that  the  ac- 
tual administrator  of  the  sacraments  is  not  the  visible 
priest,  but  the  invisible  Deity, — secondly,  (32)  that 
as  the  merit  of  the  priesthood  can  add  nothing  to  the 
efficacy  of  ihe  sacraments,  so  neither  can  the  sins  of  the 
priesthood  take  anytliing  away — tiiirdly,  (33)  that  it 
is  not  th3  man  who  baptizes,  but  thegreatname  in  which 
we  are  baptized,  which  is  worthy  to  be  enquired  of;  since 
the  efficacy  of  J3aptism,  which  is  the  remission  of  sins,  is  of 
God;and  the  work  of  preaching  the  gospel,  so  far  as  human 
agency  is  concerned,  is  therefore  a  greater  work  than  th;  t 
of  Baptism, — and  fourthly,  (34)  that  a  repetition  of  Bap 
tism  is  utterly  inadmissible,  being  liable  to  the  reproach, 
symbolically,  of  crucifying  Christ  a  second  time.  Now 
in  all  this,  the  sentiments  of  our  author  are  in  no  respect 
peculiar.  But  the  last  passage  which  I  have  quoted  (35) 
is  directly  hostile  to  the  scheme  of  Dr.  Waterland  and  his 

mauum  invisibiliter  extensam.  Sicut  enim  cum  baptizaris,  ipse  te 
non  baptizat,  sed  Deus  est  qai  tuum  caput  invisibile  potentia  conti- 
net,  et  nee  angelus,  nee  archangelus,  nee  uUus  alius  aecedere  et  tan- 
gereaudet;  ita  nunc  quoque  cum  Deus  regenerat,  ipsius  est  solius 
donum. 

(32)  lb.  Tom.  4,  334,  Horn.  VIII.  in  Epist.  ad  Corinth.  I.  cap.  ii. 
Nunc  autem  per  indignos  consuevit  Deus  operari,  et  nihil  propter 
sacerdotis  vitam  baptismatis  gratia  lasditur. — Hose  dico,  ne  quis  pras- 
sentium  sacerdotis  vitam  pensiculando  circa  religionis  nostrge  doctri- 
nam  scandalizetur.  Nihil  enim  homo  his  quaa  sibipropouuntur,  ex  se 
addit :  sed  id  omne  divinse  virtutis  opus  est,  et  ipse  Deus,  qui  nos 
erudit. 

(33)  lb.  p.  297,  Horn.  III.  in  Epist.  ad  Corinth.  I.  Cap.  i.  Nunquid 
in  nomine  Pauli  baptizati  estis  "?  Ac  si  diceret,  Noli  mihi  dicere,  quis 
baptizavit,  sed  in  cujus  nomine.  Nee  enim  qui  baptizat,  sed  quern  in 
baptismate  invocamus,  inquiritur.     Hie  enim  est  qui  dimittit  peccata. 

Et  profecto  magnum  qnidJam  baptisma  est,  sed  ejus  magnitudi- 

nem  non  qui  baptizat,  sed  qui  invocatur,  in  baptismate  efficit.  Nam 
baptizare  nihil  est,  si  humanus  labor  consideretur,  sed  longe  minus 
quJim  evangelizare. 

(34)  lb.  p.  1536,5.  Com.  Chrysost.in  Epist.  Paul/' ad  Hebrasos,cap. 
VI.  Horn.  IX.  Proinde  qui  secundo  seipsum  baptizat,  secundo  eum 
crucifigit, — Sicut  enim  mortuus  est  Christus  in  cruce,  sic  et  nos  in 
baptismate,  non  carni,  sed  peccato. — Si  ergo  necesse  est  baptizare 
iterum,  necesse  est  rursum  eundem  ipsum  mori.  Baptisma  enim  nihil 
aliud  est,  quam  interitus  ejus  qui  baptizatur,  et  resurrectio  illius. 

(35)  lb.  Tom.  2.  p.  766,  In  Cap.  Matthxi  VII.  Horn.  XIX.  Speaking 
of  heretics,  Chrysostom  says,  "Sed  forte  dicis,  Quomodo  dicere  ilium 
possum  non  esse  Christianum,  quern  video  Christum  confitentera,  ai- 


41 

ingenious  coadjutors.  For  their  theory  requires  us  to  be- 
lieve, that  the  reason  why  the  primitive  Church  allowed 
the  validity  of  heretical  Baptisms,  was  because  the  heri- 
tics  had  a  true  and  regular  priesthood,  by  succession  and 
ordination  ;  which  priestly  authority  was  indelible.  And 
since  they  claim  St.  Chrysostom  as  a  witness  on  their  side, 
it  is  with  rather  more  interest  than  the  passage  would 
otherwise  deserve  that  I  have  transcribed  the  following 
part  of  his  testimony. 

"  Perhaps  thou  wilt  say,  How  can  I  deny  a  man  to  be  a 
Christian,  when  I  behold  him  confessing  Christ,  having  an 
altar,  offering  the  sacrifice  of  bread  and  wine,  baptizing, 
reading  the  Scriptures  of  the  saints,  and  having  every  or- 
der of  the  priest  liood?  0  wise  man  !  if  he  does  not  con- 
fess Christ,  his  heathenism  is  manifest,  and  if  thou  art  se- 
duced by  that,  itvvas  insanity  which  seduced  thee  :  but  if 
he  does  confess  Christ,  and  yet  not  as  Christ  himself  com- 
manded, then  it  is  thine  own  negligence  if  thou  art  se- 
duced by  him.  For  he  who  falls  into  a  hidden  pit,  is 
called  negligent,  because  he  did  not  look  carefully  before 
him  :  while  he  who  falls  into  an  open  pit,  is  not  called 
negligent  but  insane.  As  to  what  thou  hast  said  con- 
cerning the  similitude  of  the  ecclesiastical  mysteries,  hear 
this  answer.  The  ape  haa  the  members  of  a  man,  and 
imitates  man  in  all  his  actions,  but  ivouldst  thou  on  that 
ground  judge  that  it  should  be  called  a  man'.'  In  like  man- 
ner heresy  has  all  the  members  of  the  Church,  and  imi- 
tates her  mysteries,  but  they  are  not  of  the  Church  not- 
withstanding.'' 

tare  habentem,  sacrificium  panis  et  vini  ofFerentem,  baptizantem,  scrip- 
turas  sanctorum  legentem,  omnem  ordinem  sacerdotii  habentem  ?  Vir 
sapiens,  si  non  confitetur  Christum,  et  manifesta  esset  gentilitas  illius, 
et  si  seducebaris  per  eam,  insania  erat,  qua  seducebaris  :  nunc  autem 
qui  confitetur  Christum,  sed  non  sic  quemadmodum  mandavit  Chris- 
tus,  negligentia  tua  est,  si  ab  eo  seduceris.  Qui  enim  in  occultam 
foveam  cadit,  negligens  esse  dicitur,  quia  non  caute  prospexit:  qui 
autem  in  manifestam  foveam  cadit,  non  negligens  dicitur,  sed  insanus. 
Quod  autem  de  similitudine  ecclesiasticorum  mysteriorum  dixisti,  hcc 
audi  responsum.  Quoniam  et  simia  hominis  habet  membra,  et  per 
omnia  hominem  imitatur,  nunquid  propterea  dicenda  est  homo  I  Sic 
et  haeresis  omnia  Ecclesise  habet  et  imitatur  mysteria,  sed  non  sunt 
Ecclesiaa. 

4*  "  ■ 


Here,  then,  St.  Chrysostom,  expressly  reckoning  the 
orders  of  the  priesthood  amongst  the  several  particulars 
in  which  the  heretics  resembled  the  Church,  plainly  de- 
nies that  there  was  any  more  identity  between  the  priest- 
hood of  the  one  and  the  priesthood  of  the  other,  than 
there  is  between  the  members  of  the  ape  and  those  of 
the  man.  Now  if  this  be  sound  doctrine, — which  I  by  no 
means  assert,  but  give  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  other  side,  as 
the  doctrine  of  their  own  favorite  witness — it  surely  de- 
stroys the  whole  ingenious  theory  by  which  they  think 
they  can  account  for  the  admission  of  heretical  Baptisms, 
without  being  obliged  to  acknowledge  the  vahdity  of 
Lay-Baptism.  For  how  could  the  ordinance  derive  any 
additional  efficacy,  in  the  judgment  of  Chrysostom,  from 
a  ministry,  whose  acts  he  held  in  the  same  esteem  as  the 
imitations  of  a  monkey? 

But  my  next  witness  is,  on  every  account,  much  more 
important.  Innocent,  the  first  bishop  of  Rome  who  bore 
that  name,  was  contemporary  with  Chrysostom,  for  his 
accession  is  placed  by  Baronius  in  A.  D.  402.  And  in 
the  passage  which  I  shall  cite,  we  have,  not  the  loose 
and  vague  language  of  a  Homily  ad populum,  but  a  pre- 
cise statement  on  the  very  point,  addressed  to  a  bishop. 
In  this  epistle,  (36)  the  pontiff  saith,  that  although  the  lay- 
men who  were  converts  from  the  Arians,and  other  heretics 
of  the  same  kind,  should  be  received  upon  a  profession  of 

(36.)  Inn.  epist.  XVIII.  Alexandra  Episcopo,  Condi.  Gen.  Hard.  Tom. 
\.  p.  1013.  C  Ariianos  proEterea,  ceterasque  hujusmodi  pestes,  quia 
eorum  laicos  converses  ad  Dominum,  sub  imagine  pcEnitentia?  ac  Sanc- 
ti  Spiritus  sanctificatione  per  manus  impositionem  suscipimus;  non 
videtur,  clericos  eorum  cum  sacerdotii  aut  ministerii  cujuspiam  susci- 
pi  debere  dignitate  :  quoniam  quibus  solum  baptisma  ratum  esse  per- 
mittimus,  quod  ulique  in  nomine  Patris,  et  Filii,  el  Spiritus  Sancti  per- 
ficitur,  nee  Spiritum  Sanctum  eos  habere  ex  illo  baptismate  illisque 
mysteriis  arbitramur:  quoniam  cum  a  Catholica  fide  eorum  auctores 
desciscerent,  perfectionem  Spiritus  quam  acceperant,  amiserunt.  Nee 
dare  ejus  plenitudinem  possunt,  quae  maxime  in  ordinationibus  oper- 
atur,  quam  per  impietatis  sua;  perfidiam  potius  quam  per  fidem,  dix- 
erim,  perdiderunt.  Quomodo  fieri  potest,  ut  eorum  profanos  sacerdo- 
tes,  dignos  Christi  honoribus  arbitremur,  quorum  laicos  imperfectos, 
ut  dixi,  ad  Sancti  Spiritus  percipiendam  gratiam,  cum  poenitentise 
imagine  recipiaraus  1 


43 

repentance,  with  the  imposition  of  hands,  yet  it  would  not 
follow  thattlieir  clergy  ought  to  be  allowed  the  dignity 
of  any  ministerial  or  sacerdotal  power.  For  nothing  of 
theirs  was  admilled  but  their  Baptism,  which  was  ad- 
ministered in  the  true  form  of  the  ordinance,  by  'he  in- 
vocation of  the  sacred  Trinity.  Nor  was  their  Baptism 
to  be  supposed  endowed  with  any  spiritual  grace,  for 
when  the  authors  of  heresy  departed  from  the  catholic 
faith,  they  lost  the  perfection  of  the  Spirit  which  they  had 
received.  Hence  they  could  not  give  the  plenitude  of 
that  grace  which  chiefly  operates  in  ordinations,  for  they 
hQ.(\  forfeited  it  by  their  perfidy.  And  the  pontiff' asks, 
in  conclusion,  how  it  was  possible  that  those  profane 
priests  could  be  thought  worthy  of  the  honours  of  Christ, 
whose  imperfect  laymen  could  not  be  admitted  to  the 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  without  repentance?  Now  this 
testimony  directly  disproves  the  theory  on  the  other  side; 
for  it  shows  most  clearly  that  instead  of  the  ancient 
Church  admitting  the  Baptisms  of  heretics  on  the  ground 
that  those  who  administered  them  were  priests,  validly 
ordained,  it  was  on  the  very  different  ground  that  the 
sacrament  had  been  administered  in  the  orthodox  form  ; 
since  the  Baptifuns  of  the  Arians  are  here  expressly  al- 
lowed, while  their  ordinations  are  ^s  expressly  rejected. 

In  harmony  with  the  same  doctrine,  the  first  Leo,  who 
occupied  the  See  of  Rome,  A.  D.  440,  lays  down  the  rule, 
(37)  that  Baptism  received  from  heretics  must  not  be  re- 
peated; but  that,  since  the  form  of  the  sacrament  only 
could  be  had  amongst  heretics,  the  converted  penitent 
must  have  confirmation  in  the  catholic  Church,  in  order 
that  he  may  receive  the  sanciification  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

(37)  lb.  p.  1771.  D.  Leonis  Papse  l.Epislola  Niceias  Aquil.  Episcopo. 
§  VII.  Nam  hi  qai  baptismum  ab  hoereticis  acceperunt,  cum  baptizati 
antea  non  fuissent,  sola  invocatione  Spiritus  sancti  per  impositionem 
manuum  confirmandi  sunt,  quia  formam  tantum  baptismi  sine  sancti- 
licationis  virtute  siuiipserunt.  Et  banc  regulam  (ut  scitis)  servandam 
omnibus  Ecclesiis  predicamus;  utlavacrum  semel  initum  nulla  iter- 
atione  violetur;  dicente  Apostolo,  Unus  Dominus,  una  fides,  unum  bap- 
tisma.  Cujus  ablutio  nulla  iteratione  temeranda  est,  sed  (ut  diximus) 
sola  sanctificatio  Spiritus  sancti  invocanda  est :  ut  quod  ab  hsereticis 
nemo  accipit,  a  catliolicis  sacerdotibus  consequatur. 


44 

The  next  assertion  of  the  point  occurs  in  the  fourteenth 
canon  of  the  General  Council  of  Chalcedon,  A.  D.  451. 
And  here  it  is  decreed,  (38)  that  whereas  readers  and 
singers  were  allowed  to  marry,  nevertheless  they  should 
not  be  permitted  to  marry  amongst  heretics  :  that  if,  how- 
ever, there  were  any  who  had  children  by  such  marri- 
ages, and  tliese  children  were  already  baptized  amongst 
heretics,  their  fathers  should  bring  them  to  the  commu- 
nion of  the  Catholic  Church  ;  but  such  among  them  as 
were  still  unbaptized,  should  not  be  baptized  amongst 
heretics,  nor  should  it  be  lawful  thenceforth  to  marry  a 
heretic,  a  Jew,  or  a  pagan. 

One  year  after  this  General  Council,  we  have  the  tes- 
timony of  the  second  council  of  Aries,  in  its  sixteenth  or 
seventeenth  canons,  (39)  where  the  Photinians  or  Paul- 
ianists  are  ordered  to  be  baptized,  according  to  the  de- 
crees of  the  fathers  ;  while  the  Arians,  and  the  Bonosia- 
ci,  being  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  are  directed 
to  be  received  into  the  Church,  with  chrism  and  the  im- 
position of  hands. 

An  interesting  record  upon  this  subject  occurs  in  the 
acts  of  a  Roman  council,  held  under  the  pontificate  of 
Felix  III,  A.  D.  484  ;  in  consequence  of  the  lapse  of 
many  African  clergy,  whom  the  Vandals  had  prevailed 
upon,  by  persuasion  and  threats,  to  accept  Arian  Bap- 
tism.*    "It  is  a  subject  of  general  grief  and  lamentation," 


(38)  Con.  Gen.Hard.  Tom.  2.  p.  607.  B.  Quoniam  in  quibusdam 
provinciis  concessum  est  lectoribus  et  psalmistis  uxores  ducere,  sta- 
tuit  sancta  S3aiodus,  non  licere  cuiquam  ex  his  accipere  sectse  alterius 
nxorem.  Qui  vero  ex  hujusmodi  conjugio  jam  lilios  susceperunt,  si 
quidem  prccventi  sunt,  ut  ex  se  genitiapud  haereticos  baptizarentur; 
offerre  eos  Ecclesiae  catholicae  communioni  conveniet :  non  baptiza- 
tos  autem,  non  posse  eos  ulterius  apud  haereticos  baptizare :  sed  ne- 
qiie  copulari  debet  uuptnra  haeretico,  aut  ludaeo,  vel  pagano,  &c. 

(39)  Ih.  p.  774.  Concil.  Arelat.  11,  canones  XVI  c^  XVII.  Photinia- 
tos,  sive  Pauliauistas,  secundum  patrum  statuta,  baptizari  oportere. 
Bonosiacos  autem  ex  eodem  errore  venientes,  quos  sicut  Arrianos  bap- 
tizari in  Trinitate  manifestum  est,  si  interrogati  fidem  nostram  ex 
toto  corde  confessi  fuerint,  cum  chrismate  et  manus  impositione  in 
Ecclesia  recipi  sufficit. 

*  Baron.  Annul.  A.  D.  487.  §  11,  Tom.  6. p.  482. 


45 

saith  the  pontiff  in  his  Address,  (40)  "that  in  Africa  we 
have  known  even  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  to  be 
re-baplized."  In  the  second  canon  of  the  Council  it  is 
strongly  argued  (41)  that  no  one  can  come  a  second  time 
to  baptism  without  casting  the  grace  of  salvation  away, 
since  it  amounts  to  an  open  denial  of  Christ,  and  a  pro- 
fession that  the  individual  had  been  a  pagan, — a  sin  to  be 
execrated  in  all,  but  much  more  horrible  to  be  committed 
by  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons.  And  therefore  this  ca- 
non orders  all  such  of  the  clergy  as  had  been  re-baptized, 
to  be  placed  in  the  order  of  penitents  all  their  days,  and 
to  be  allowed  lay-communion  only  at  the  hour  of  death. 
Now  this  passage  of  Church  history  may  not,  indeed, 
seem  directly  applicable  to  the  question  in  which  we  are 
concerned;  since  it  is  obvious  that  contempt  for  the  Bap- 
tisms of  heretics  and  schismatics,  is  a  very  diflerent  mat- 
ter from  despising  the  Baptisms  of  the  Church.  But  yet, 
upon  thorough  examination  of  the  theology  involved  in 
the  case,  the  distinction  will  be  seen  to  be  in  degree  only. 
For  the  Church  herself,  as  we  have  found  by  the  multi- 
phed  decisions  of  her  councils  and  doctors,  had  so  rever- 
enced Baptism  as  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  that  she  for- 
bade its  repetition,  even  when  it  had  been  administered 
by  her  worst  enemies.     And  therefore  we  must  regard  it, 


(40)  Condi.  Gen.  Hard.  Tom.  2.  p.  878.  Concil.  Rom.  sub  Felice  III. 
Felix  episcopus  Ecclesife  urbis  Romse  dixit:  Communis  dolor,  et 
generalis  estgemitiis,  quod  intra  Afticam  rebaptizatos  etiam  episco- 
pos,  presbyteros  diaconosque  cognovimus. 

(41)  lb.  p.  833.  Ut  ergo  ab  Ecclesiar  summitatibus  inchoemus,  eos 
quos  episcopos,  presbyteros,  vel  diaconos  fuisse  constiterit;  et  seu  op- 
tantes  forsitan,  seu  coaclos  lavacri  illius  unici  salutarisque  claruerit 
fecisse  jacturam  ;  et  Christum,  quem  non  solum  dono  regenerationls, 
varum  etiam  gratia  percepti  honoris  induerant,  exuisse  ;  cum  constet, 
neminem  ad  secundam  tinctionem  venire  potuisse,  nisi  se  palam 
Christianum  negaverit,  et  professus  fuerit  se  esse  paganum.  Quod 
cum  generaliter  sit  in  omnibus  exsecrandum,  multo  magis  in  episco- 
pis,  presbyteris,  diaconibus  auditu  saltern  dictuque  probatur  horren- 
dum.  Sed  quia  idem  Dominus  atque  Salvalor  clemenlissimns  est,  et 
neminem  vultperire;  usque  ad  exitus  sui  diem,  in  pa-nitentia  (si 
resipiscunt,)  jacere  conveniet;  nee  orationi  non  modo  lidelium,  sed 
necatechumenorum  omnimodisinteresse,  quibus  communio  liicatan- 
tum  in  raorte  reddenda  est. 


46 

I  presume,  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  great  Au- 
gustin,  where,  expostulating  with  a  Donatist  bishop  for 
having  re-baptized  a  deacon,  he  says,  (42)"  Tc?  re-bap- 
tize a  heretic  is  truly  a  sin,  but  to  re-baptize  a  Catho- 
lic is  a  most  enormous  rvicked?iess." 

The  fourteenth  canon  of  the  council  of  Ilerda,  A.  D. 
524,  follows  up  the  subject,  by  decreeing,  (43)  that  "no 
religious  communicant  should  participate,  even  at  meals, 
with  those  who  had  been  re-baptized." 

The  third  Council  of  Toledo,  A.  D.  589,  next  claims 
attention,  by  taking  a  further  step  towards  the  suppression 
of  re-baptization.  For  in  tlie  fifteenth  canon  it  is  thus  de- 
creed :  (44)  "Whoever  believes  or  shall  believe  the  sacri- 
legious work  of  re-baptizing  to  be  good,  and  either  per- 
forms or  shall  perform  it,  let  him  be  accursed.^' 

The  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  set  forth  with  great  per- 
spicuity by  Isidore,  the  bishop  of  Hispala,  who  flourished 
about  this  time.  He  states  in  plain  terms,  (45)  that  Bap- 
tism was  delivered  to  the  priests,  that  even  the  deacons 
could   not  lawfully  administer  it  without  the  bishops  or 

(4:2)  Augustin.  0pp.  Tom.  2.  p.  23.  Episf.  XXJII.  Rebaptizare  igitur 
haerelicum  hominem  qui  haec  sanctitatis  signa  pei-ceperit  quffi  Chris- 
tiana tradidit  disciplina,  omnino  peccatum  est :  rebaptizare  autem 
Catholicum,  immanissimum  scelus  est. 

(43)  Concil.  Gen.  Hard.  Tom.  2.p.  1066.  Concil.  Ilerdense,  Can.  XIV. 
Cum  rebaptizatis  fideles  religiosi,  nee  in  cibo,  participent. 

(44)  lb.  Tom.  3.  p.  Alb.  Concil.  Toktanum  III.  Can.  XV.  Quicum- 
que  rebaptizandi  sacrilegum  opus  bonum  esse  credit  aut  crediderit, 
agit  aut  egerit,  anathema  sit. 

(45)  Isidori  Hispal.  Episcop.  de  Offic.  Ecclesiast.  Lib.  11.  C.  XXIV. 
p.  411,  G.  H.  Unde  constat  baptisma  solis  sacerdotibixs  esse  traditum, 
cujusque  mysterium  nee  ipsis  diaconibus  explere  licifum  absque  epis- 
copis,  vel  presbyteris,  nisi  illis  procul  absentibus  ultima  lariguoris  co- 
gat  necessitas  ;  quod  et  laicis  fidelibus  plerumque  permittitur,  ne  quis- 
quam  sine  remedio  sklutari  de  sseculo  evocetur.  Hseretici  autem,  si 
tamen  in  Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti  attestatione  docentur  baptis- 
ma suscepisse,  non  iterum  sunt  baptizandi,  sed  sola  chrismate  et 
manus  impositione  purgandi.  Baptismus  enim  non  est  hominis  meri- 
tum,  sed  Christi  :  ideoque  nihil  interest,  hagreticus  an  fidelis  baptizet. 
Quod  sacramentum  tam  sanctum  est,  ut  nee  homicida  ministrante  pol- 
luatur.  Habet  quidem  haereticus  baptismum  Christi ;  sed  quia  extra 
unitatem  fidei  est,  nihil  ei  prodest.  At  ubi  ingressus  fuerit,  statim  bap- 
tisma quod  habuerat  foris  ad  perniciem,  incipit  illi  jamprodesse  ad 
saliltem. 


47 

the  presbyters,  unless  when  they  are  faraway,  and  death 
is  approaching,  in  which  cd.se  faithful  laymen  are  gen," 
erally  allowed  to  administe}' it,  Xesi^ny  oi^^  should  de- 
part without  the  salutary  remedy.  That  heretics  also, 
provided  only  they  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  7'rinity, 
are  admitted,  nor,  in  such  case,  is  Baptism  administered 
again,  but  they  are  cleansed  by  chrism  and  the  imposition 
of  hands  only.  For  Baptism  is  not  the  merit  of  man  but 
of  Christ,  and  therefore  it  is  of  no  importance  whether 
the  faithful  or  the  heretic  baptizes.  And  of  such  sanctity 
is  this  sacrament,  that  it  cannot  be  poUuted  even  by  a 
homicide.  The  heretic,  then,  has  indeed  the  Baptism  of 
Christ,  but  because  he  is  without  the  unity  of  the  faith,  it 
profits  him  nothing.  But  when  he  has  entered  this  unity, 
immediately  the  Baptism  which  he  previously  had  to  his 
hurt,  begins  to  be  profitable  to  his  salvation." 

I  shall  now  refer,  in  chronological  order,  to  the  great 
Council  of  TruUo,  called  the  Qninisextan,  held  A.  D.  681, 
in  the  ninety-fifth  canon  of  which  the  subject  is  treated 
with  all  the  exactness  of  detail.  (46)  Of  those  heretics  who 
were  to  be  admitted  without  re-baptization,  this  canon 
specifies  the  Arians,  the  JNIacedonians,  the  Novatians, 
&c.,  while  the  Eunomians,  the  Montanists,  the  Sabelli- 
ans,  with  many  others,  who,  like  them,  had  changed  the 
very  form  of  Baptism,  are  directed  to  be  re-baptized. 

The  year  688  brings  us  to  the  chapters  of  Theodore, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  the  sixth  of  which  we  read 
as  follows :  (47)  "Those  who  have  been  twice  baptized 

(46)  Hard.  Con.  Gen.  Tom.  3.  p.  1695.  Co7icil.  Quinisext.  Can.  XCV. 
Eos  qui  ex  hsereticis  ad  rectam  fidem  accedunt,  et  parti  eorum  qui  sal- 
vantur,  subjecta  consequentia  et  consuetudine  recipientes,  Arianos 
quidem  et  Macedonianos,  et  Novatianos,  qui  se  Puros  appellant,  et 
Aristeros,  et  Tessarescaidecatitas,  seu  Tetraditas,  et  Apollinaristas, 
recipimus,  dantes  libellos,  et  omnem  hteresim  anathematizantes, — 
sancto  prinium  chrismate  inungentes  et  frontem,  et  oculos,  et  nares,  et 
OS,  et  aures;  consignantes  autem  dicimus  :  Signaculum  doni  Spiri- 
tus  sancti.  De  Paulianis  autem  a  Catholica  Ecclesia  statutumest,  ut 
ii  omnino  rebaptizentur,  Eunomianos  quoque,  qui  in  unam  demersio- 
nem  baptizant,  et  Montanistas,  qui  hie  dicuntur  Phryges,  et  Sabelli- 
anos,  &c. 

(47)  lb.  p.  1772,  Theodori  Cantuar,  Archiepiscopi  Capitula.  VI.   Qui 


48 

through  ignorance,  do  not  need  penance  ;  but  they  can- 
not be  ordained  according  to  the  canons,  unless  under 
great  necessity.  But  those  who  cannot  plead  ignorance, 
forasmuch  as  they  have  as  it  were  crucified  Christ  afresh, 
must  do  penance  for  seven  years." 

In  A.  D,  774,  Charles  the  Great  received  an  Epitome 
of  the  various  canons  from  the  Apostles  down,  as  a  pre- 
sent from  pope  Adrian.  And  it  is  worthy  of  observation 
that  in  this  collection  the  rule  appears  iniperative,  by 
which  those  who  had  been  re-baptized  should  not  be  ad- 
mitted to  holy  orders.  (48)  Those  canons  of  the  African 
Church  are  also  retained,  (49)  in  which  it  was  decreed 
not  only  that  the  Donatist  clergy  should  be  received  into 
the  Church  in  their  sacerdotal  order,  but  still  further,  that 
the  Catholic  bishops  should  divide  their  dioceses  with 
the  Donatists.  True,  these  concessions  are  placed  upon 
the  ground  of  expediency.  Nevertheless,  when  we  re- 
member that  the  origin  of  that  pernicious  sect  was  in 
schism,  that  they  maintained  their  hostile  position  against 
the  Church  with  the  most  furious  obstinacy,  notwithstand- 
ing the  decision  of  the  great  council  of  Aries  against  them, 
that  they  indirectly  encouraged  and  doubtless  inflamed 
the  sanguinary  cruelties  of  the  Circumcelliones,  in  order 
to  sustain  their  cause  by  violence  and  blood,  and  that 
their  first  bishop,  being  consecrated  by  a  factious  minor- 
ity when  the  see  was  regularly  filled,  and  therefore  in  ut- 
ter contempt  of  the  canons,  was  not  entitled  to  the  char- 
acter of  a  true  bishop,  but  was  rather  a  wolf  than  a  shep- 
herd— when  all  this  is  fully  considered,  those  canons  cf 
the  African  church  must  needs  be  regarded  as  a  beauti- 
ful and  atTecting  monument  of  her   moderation  and  love 

bis  baptizati  sunt  ignorantes,  non  indigent  poenitentia,  nisi  qucd  se- 
cundum canones  non  possunt  ordinari,  nisi  pro  magna  necessitate. 
Qui  vero  non  ignorant,  quasi  iterum  Christum  crucifijcerunt,  pj?nite- 
ant  septem  annis,  <fec. 

(48)  Ib.p.  20i7,  A.     Ne  rebaptizati,  clerici  fiant. 

(49)  lb.  p.  2049.  Ut  clerici  Donatistarum  in  catholicam  Ecclesiam  re- 
cipiantur  cum  ordine  pro  tempore  et  necessitate.  And  again,  p.  2051.  Ut 
Catholici  episcopi  et  ex  Donatistis  conversi,  dioceseos  illas  sequaliter 
dividant.in  quibus  tam  Donatistse  quam  Catholici  jam  ante  comman- 
serant. 


49 

of  peace  in  the  days  of  Augnstin  ;  and  they  might  serve 
as  an  edifying  lesson,  even  now,  to  many  a  devoted  ad- 
mirer of  Christian  antiquity. 

But  I  crave  pardon  for  this  digression,  and  hasten  to  re- 
sume the  direct  Une  of  my  argument.  And  this,  perhaps, 
will  be  the  place  for  an  interesting  question  which  is  of- 
ten mooted  by  the  writers  on  the  other  side,  viz.  Wheth- 
er the  Eastern  branch  of  the  Church  was  equally  liberal 
with  the  Western,  in  the  admission  of  heretical,  schisma- 
tical,  and  lay-Baptism.  Now  the  answer  to  this  might 
well  be  considered  as  sufficiently  given  already,  not  only 
because  the  greater  Councils  which  I  have  cited  were  of 
universal  authority,  but  also  because  there  was  no  sep- 
aration of  the  Church  into  Eastern  and  Western,  until 
after  this  period  ;  and  therefore  the  unity  of  the  universal 
or  catholic  body  affords  the  strongest  presumption,  at 
least  in  the  aljsence  of  any  evidence  to  the  contrary,  that 
the  doctrine  of  one  portion  was  the  doctrine  of  the  whole. 
It  may  be  well,ho\vever,  asa  sort  of  cumulative  evidence, 
to  transcribe  a  very  direct  passage  from  the  canons  of 
the  Greek  patriarch  Nicephorus,  who  flourished  in  the 
ninth  century,  in  which  it  is  declared,  (50)  that  if  there 
be  any  infants  nnbaptized  in  a  place  where  there  is  no 
priest,  it  is  fitting  that  they  should  be  baptized  notwith- 
standing. And  in  such  case,  if  the  father  himself,  or 
any  other  person  who  is  a  Christian,  should  administer 
the  ordinance,  he  commits  no  sin. 

A  little  further  on  in  the  history  of  this  same  ninth 
century,  we  meet  with  an  occurence  which  illustrates  still 
unr3  the  prevailing  doctrine  of  the  Church  on  the  subject 
of  Kiy-Biptism.  Pope  Nicholas  I.,  wlio  attained  the  Pa- 
nil  chair,  A.  D.  853,  was  consulted  by  the  Bulgarians 
under  the  following  circumstances.  (51)  A  certain  Greek 

(50)  Condi.  Gen,  Hard.  Tom.  4.  p.  1053,  N/'cephori  Confessoris  ali- 
quot canones.  can,  XVI.  Infantes  non  baptizatos  oportet,  si  quo  loco 
reperiaturquis,  u'li  non  sit  sacerdos,  baptizari.  Quod  si  vel  pater,  am 
quilibet   alius  modosil  Ohristianus,  baptizet,  peccatum  non  committit. 

(51)  Con.  Gen.  Hxrd.  Tom.  5,  p.  359.  Nicholai  Papw  Responsa  ad  Con- 
mlta  Bulgaroruin  §  XIV.  Praeterea  indicatis,  quod  quidam  Graecus  men- 
tiens  fateretur  se  presbyterum  e  -sc,  cum  non  esset,  ac  per  hoc  plurimos 

5 


50 

impostor,  who  had  pretended  to  be  a  priest  without  any- 
just  title  to  the  office,  under  that  assumed  character  had 
converted  and  baptized  a  large  number  of  men,  Dis 
covering  the  cheat,  however,  his  former  disciples  became 
enraged,  and  punished  him  by  cutting  off  his  nose  and 
ears,  scourging  him  severely,  and  banishing  him.  The 
Pope,  in  his  answer,  praises  their  zeal,  but  utterly  con- 
demns their  cruelty.  And  while  he  admits  that  ti  e 
Greek  did  wrong  in  feigning  himself  to  be  a  priest,  he 
cites  the  apostle,  who  rejoiced  that  the  gospel  was  preach- 
ed, even  although  it  was  done  by  many  out  of  envy 
and  strife,  and  not  sincerely.  With  respect  to  the  persons 
who  had  received  Baptism  from  the  impostor,  however, 
the  Pontiff  replies,  that  if  they  were  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Holy  and  undivided  Trinity,  they  v^ere  truly  Chris- 
tians, and  ought  not  to  be  baptized  again.  He  then  pro-, 
ceeds  to  show  that  the  v/ork  of  Baptism  was  Christ's,  no 
matter  by  whom  administered,  although  even  by  an  adul- 
terer or  by  a  thief.  And  again  he  refers  to  Scripture, 
where  John  the  Baptist,  pointing  to  the  Saviour,  saith, 

in  vestra  patria  baptizasset.  Cum  ergo  vos  inspiratione  Dei  cognovis- 
seris,  quod  non  esset  presbyter,  judicaveritis,  ut  amitteret  aures  et 
nares,  et  accrrimis  verberibuscosderetur,  etex  patria  vestra  pelleretur. 
Ecce  impletum  est  in  vobis,  ignoscite  nobis,  quod  de  quibusdani  Apos- 
tolus clamat,  quod  habent  zelum  Dei,  sed  non  secundum  scientiam. 
Nam  licet  ille  male  fecerit,  si  mentitus  est,  vos  tamen  in  hoc  zelum 
quidem  pium,  sed  minus  cautum  habuistis :  quoniam  quamvis  ipse  se 
sacerdotem  esse  simulaverit,  simulatio  tamen  ejus  saiutem  plurimis 
contulit.  Siquidem  diversi  fuere  qui  diverso  modo  Christum,  sed  non 
propter  Christum  annantiabant :  sed  sive  occasione,  sive  quomodo- 
cumque  hunc  annuntiarent,  hos  tantum  non  prohibcbat  Apostolus, 
qui  solum  ut  Christus  annuntiarctur,  plurimum  satagebat,  &c. 

lb.  §  XV.  Porro  iuterrogatis,  utrum  homines  illi  qui  hoc  ab  illo 
baptisma  receperunt,  Christiani  sunt,  an  iterum  baptizari  debeant. 
Sed  si  in  nomine  summse  ac  individuae  Trinitatis  baptizati  fuere,  Chris- 
tiani  profecto  sunt,  et  cos  a  quocumque  Christiano  baptizati  sunt,  iterate 
baptizare  non  convenit ; — et  baptismum  quod  procul  sit  ab  Eccle- 
sia,  sive  ab  adultero,  vel  a  fure  fuerit  datum,  ad  percipientem  munus 
pervenit  illabatum ;  quia  vox  ilia  quce  sonuit  per  Columbam,  omnem 
maculam  humance  pollutionis  excludit,  qua  declarafur,  ac  dicitur : 
Hie  est  qui  baptizat. — Quod  itaque  numerosa  Scripturarum  testatur 
instructio,  et  revera  quia  secundum  famosissiraum  Apostolum  :  Neque 
qui  plantat,  id  est,  catechizat,  rieque  qui  irrigai,  id  est  baptizat,  est  uli- 
qw'd,  sed  qui  incremcntum  dat  Deus. 


51 

He  shall  baptize  you,  and  quotes  St.  Paul  sayitig,  "  Nei- 
ther is  he  that  plautelh  anything,  neither  lie  that  wateretli, 
but  God  who  givcth  the  increase." 

A  similar  instance  occurred  in  France,  before  the  close 
of  the  ninth  century,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  cele- 
brated Archbishop  Rabanus,  who,  being  consulted  by 
one  of  his  suffragans  upon  the  course  proper  to  be  pur- 
sued, enters  largely  into  the  whole  subject,  as  follows  : 

"  With  respect  to  the  man,"  saith  the  Archbishop,  (52) 

(52)  Concil.  Gen.  Hard.  Tom.  5,  p.  1415.  Rabani  Responsa  Canoni- 
ca,  §  VI.  De  illo  vero  qui  piesbyterum  se  esse  finxerit,  cum  non 
asset  ordinatus,  et  baptism!  officium  exercuit,  requirendum  est  utrum 
ipse  baptizans  baptizatus  esset,  et  utrum  in  nomine  Sanctte  Trinitatis 
sub  trina  mersione  baptizaverit.  Quod  si  ita  erat,  non  est  iterum 
baptizandus,  sed  per  impositionem  manus  episcopalis,  et  unctionem 
sacri  chrismatis,  id  quod  factum  est  contirmandum.  Quia  quod  se- 
mel  est  in  sacramento  baptismatis  efiectum  non  licet  iterari :  quoniam 
unus  est  Dominus,  una  fides,  unum  baptisma.  Attamen  ille  qui  prae- 
sumptuose  egit,  et  non  pro  necessitate  aliqua,  canonica  disciplina 
est  coercendus.  Igitur  utbeatus  Ambrosius  testatur,  postquam  omni- 
bus locis  Ecclesioe  sunt  constitutoe,  et  officia  ordinata,  aliter  composita 
res  est  quam  cosperal.  Primum  enim  omnes  docebant  et  baptizabant,  qui- 
buscumque  diebus  vel  temporibus  fuisset  occasio. — At  ubi  omnia  loca 
circumplexa  est  Ecclesia,  conventiculaconstituta  sunt,  et  reclores,  et 
cetera  officia  Ecclesiis  sunt  ordinata:  ut  nullus  de  clero  auderet,  qui  or- 
dinatus non  esset,  procsumere  officium  quod  sciret  non  sibi  creditum 
vel  concessum;  et  cccpit  alio  ordine  et  providentia  gubernari  Ec- 
clesia. Quod  si  omnes  eadem  possent,  irrationabile  esset,  et  vulgaris 
res  et  vilissima  videretur.  Hinc  ergo  est  unde  nunc  neque  diaconi 
in  populo  predicant,  neque  ceteri  clerici  vel  laici  baptizant,  &c. — 
Quod  autem  unum  sit  Christi  baptisma,  et  licet  a  diversis  ministre- 
tur,  non  debet  iterari  vel  mutari,  sacrum  Evangclium  ostendit,  ubi 
verba  Johannis  Baptiston  posita  sunt  ita  dicentis  :  Quia  vidi  Sjnriturn 
descendenlem  quasi  Colutnbam  de  ccelo,  et  mancntevi  super  eum,  el  ego  ne' 
sciebam.  Sed  qui  misit  me  baplizare  in  aqua,  ille  mihi  dixit :  Supe^ 
quern  videris  Spiriluni  descendentem  et  manentem  super  eum,  hie  est  qtfl 
baptizat  in  Spiritu  Sancio. — Quam  sententiam  beatus  Augustinus  ita 
exposuit.  Quid  ergo  per  Columbam  didicit  Johannes  ;  nisi  quandam 
proprietatem  in  Christo  futuraml  Ut  quamvis  multi  ministribaptizatu- 
ri  essent,  sive  justi,  sive  injusti,  non  tribueretur  sanctitas  baptismi  ni- 
si illi  super  quem  descendit  Columba,  de  quo  dictum:  Hie  est  qui  bapti- 
zat in  Spiritu  Sancfo.  Petrus  baptizet,  hie  est  qui  baptizat :  Paulus  bapli- 
zet,  hie  est  qui  baptizat :  Judas  baptizet,  hie  est  qui  baptizat.  Nam  si 
pro  diversitate  meritorum  baptismus  esset,  quia  diversa  sunt  merita, 
diversa  essent  baptismata.  Sed  unum  est  baptisma,  et  solus  est  Chris- 
tus,  qui  per  diversos  ministros  suos  baptismate  baptizat  in  remissio- 


52 

"  who  pretended  to  be  a  presbyter  when  he  was  not  or- 
dained, and  in  this  assumed  character  administered  the 
ordinance  of  Baptism,  it  must  first  be  ascertained  whether 
he  had  been  baptized  himself,  and  whether  he  baptized 
others  with  {he  trine  immersion  in  the  name  of  the  Holy- 
Trinity.  If  this  be  so,  the  Baptisms  are  not  to  be  repeat- 
ed, but  by  the  laying  on  of  the  bishop's  hands,  and  the 
anointing  with  holy  chrism,  that  which  has  been  done 
must  be  confirmed.  For  that  which  is  once  effect- 
ed in  the  sacrament  of  Baptism,  it  is  not  lawful  to  repeat, 
since  there  is  one  Lord,  one  Faith,  one  Baptism.  Never- 
theless, he  who  has  acted  presumptuously  and  not  by  any 
necessity,  should  be  punished  by  canonical  discipline. 
Therefore,  as  blessed  Ambrose  testifies,  after  Churches 
were  erected,  and  offices  ordained  in  everyplace,  the  or- 
der of  ecclesiastical  matters  was  arranged  differently 
from  the  beginning.  For  at  first,  all  taught  and  all  bap- 
tized, whenever  tliere  was  occasion.  But  when  the 
Church  became  established,  places  of  worship  were  erect- 
ed, and  rectors  and  the  other  officers  were  ordained,  that 
no  one  might  presume  to  exercise  any  other  functions 
than  those  which  were  conceded  to  him.  Hence  it  is 
that  now  deacons  do  not  preach  to  the  people,  nor  do  the 
inferior  clergy  nor  the  laity  baptize.  But  that  the  Bap- 
tism of  Christ  is  one,  and  ought  not  to  be  repeated  nor 
changed  although  variously  administered,  the  holy  gospel 
shews,  where  John  the  Baptist  declares:  I  saw  the  Spirit 
descending  from  heaven  like  a.  dove,  and  abiding  upon 
him;  and  I  knew  him  not.  Bui  he  who  sent  tne  to  bap- 
tize luith  ivater,  tiie  same  said  unto  me  :  Upon  whomso- 
ever thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending  and  remaining 
upon  him,  he  it  is  that  baptizeth  ivHh  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Which  sentence  is  thus  expounded  by  blessed  Angus- 
tin.  What  then  did  John  learn  through  the  holy  Dove, 
unless  a  certain  prerogative  to  be  exercised  by  Christ  ? 

nem  omnium  peccatorum.  Ideo  sacri  canones  prsecipiunt,  ut  qui  ab 
hsereticis  baptizati  sunt,  non  rebaptizcntiir ;  sed  per  impositionem 
manus  sola  Sancti  Spiritus  invocatione,  quem  ab  hrereticis  nemo  acci- 
pit,  a  Catholicis  sacerdolibus  Ecclesisesecuritatem  consequantur. 


53 

Thatalthough  many  ministers  should  henceforward  bap- 
tize, whether  righteous  or  unrighteous,  yet  the  holiness  of 
Baptism  could  only  be  attributed  to  him,  upon  whom  the 
Dove  descended  :  and  of  whom  it  was  said  :  This  is  He 
that  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Peter  may  baptize  ; 
this  is  He  that  baptizeth.  Paul  may  baptize  ;  this 
is  He  that  baptizeth.  Judas  may  baptize ;  this  is 
m^  that  baptizeth.  For  if  Baptism  depended  upon  the 
diversit)''  of  human  qualifications,  since  these  are  various, 
there  must  be  various  Baptisms.  But  Baptism  is  one, 
and  it  is  Christ  alone,  who,  through  his  various  minis- 
ters, baptizes  with  the  Baptism  of  remission  of  sins. 
Therefore  the  sacred  canons  order  that  those  ivho  have 
been  baptized  by  heretics  shall  not  be  baptized  again, 
but  by  the  imposition  of  hands  and  the  invocation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  whom  no  one  receives  from  heretics,  may  be 
assured  of  their  security  by  the  catholic  priests  of  the 
Church."  These  extracts  are  long,  and  perhaps  burden- 
some. But  yet  I  have  thought  it  best  to  give  them  at 
large,  as  presenting  the  fairest  view  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
ancient  Cluirch,  which  seems  to  have  undergone  no  se- 
rious modification  from  a  very  early  day. 

The  next  testimony  which  I  shall  adduce,  like  the  last, 
embraces  a  double  attestation,  since  it  consists  of  the 
statement  of  the  venerable  Bsde,  the  well-known  presby- 
ter of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  early  part  of  tlie 
seventh  century,  adopted  by  Herveius  the  Metropolitan 
of  Rheims,  near  the  eleventh  century.  (53)  "  According 
to  the  saving  and  firmly  established  doctrine  of  the  catho- 
lic faith,"  saith  our  English  divine,  quoted  with  approba- 
tion by  the  Rhemish  Archbishop,  "observed  unanimously 

(53)  Concil.  Gen.  Hard.  Tom.  6,  Fars  1,  p.  475.  Epislola  Herivei 
Rem.    Archiepis.  Cap.  X.     Verba  Domini  Bedae. 

Juxta  salutileram,  et  firmissimam  fidei  catholicse  doctrinam,  in  toto 
terrarum  orbe  unanimiter  ac  fideliter  ab  omnibus  observandam;  quod 
de  carnali,  hoc  etiam  de  spiritali  est  generatione  sentiendum :  nequa- 
quam  videlicet  earn,  postquam  semel  expleta  fuerit,  posse  repeti.  Sive 
enim  haereticus,  sive  schismaticus,  sive  facinorosus  quisque  inconfes- 
sione  Sanctse  Trinitatis  baptizat ;  non  valet  illo  qui  ita  baptizatus  est, 
a  bonis  Catholicis  rebaptizari,  ne  confessio,  vel  exhibitio  taati  nomi- 
nis  videatur  annullari." 
5* 


54 

and  faithfully  by  all  throughout  the  whole  world  ;  we 
must  think  concerning  the  spiritual  birth,  even  as  we  do 
concerning  the  carnal  birth,  namely,  that  after  it  is  once 
done,  it  can  by  no  means  be  repeated.  For  whether  a 
heretic  or  a  schismatic,  or  any  wicked  wretch  whatever, 
baptizes  in  the  confession  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  it  avails 
not  that  he  who  is  thus  baptized,  should  be  re-baptized  by 
good  catholics,  lest  the  confession  or  manifestation  of  such 
a  name  should  seem  to  be  anmiUed." 

From  the  synodical  constitutions  of  Odo,  bishop  of  Paris, 
in  the  twelfth  century,  I  shall  make  a  brief  extract,  confir- 
matory of  the  doctrine.  "  I^et  the  priests  frequently 
teach  the  laity,''  saith  this  document,  (54)  '•^that  they 
ought  to  baptize  children  in  case  of  necessity." 

The  thirteenth  century  brings  us  again  to  an  English 
theologian,  Richard  Poor,  the  Bishop  of  Sarum,  in  whose 
"  Constitutions,"  we  read  as  follows  :  (55)  "The  layman, 
when  in  case  of  necessity  he  has  baptized  a  child,  shall 
always  be  diligently  questioned  by  the  priest  concerning 
what  he  did  and  what  lie  said.  And  if  the  priest  shall  find 
that  the  layman  lias  administered  the  Baptism  distinctly 
and  in  the  form  of  the  Church,  either  in  French  or  in  La- 
tin, it  shall  be  approved." 

The  same  century  furnishes  us  with  a  list  of  authorities 
which  are  set  down  in  Bishop  Gibson's  learned  and  elabo- 
rate folios  upon  the  Ecclesiastical  law  of  the  Church  of 
England,  of  which  I  shall  cite  a  few  in  order  to  bring  my 
series  of  proofs  to  the  period  of  the  reformation. 

Thus  the  "Constitutions"  of  Peccham,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  A.  D.  1279,  contains  the  following  passage: 
(56)  "If  it  so  happen  that  children  are  baptized    by  lay- 

(54)  Concil  Gen.  Hard.  Tom.  6,  Pars  2,  p.  1939,  Cap.  III.  Et  in  Romano 
sub  eadem  forma  doceant  frequenter  sacerdotes,  laicos  baptizare  de- 
bere  pueros  in  necessitate. 

(55)  lb,  Tom.  1,  p.  95,  Cunstitutiones  Ric.  Poo)-e,  Sarum  Epis.  §  18.  Sem- 
per sacerdos  interroget  diligenterlaicum,  cum  in  necessitate  baptizave- 
rit  puerum,  quid'dixerit,  et  quid  fecerit.  El  si  invenerit  laicum  discrete 
et  in  forma  EcclesiiE  baptizasse,  sive  in  Gallico,  sive  in  Latino,  ap- 
probetur. 

(56)  Gibson's  Codex,  vol.  I,  p.  445,  Johannes  Peccham.  Si  forte  con- 


55 

men,  on  account  of  the  danger  of  death,  let  the  priests  be- 
ware how  they  presume  to  repeat  such  Baptism  when 
properly  done."  And  again,  another  "  Constitution"  ot 
the  same  prelate  authorises  not  only  laymen,  but  even 
women  to  baptize,  in  cases  of  extremity,  and  expressly 
forbids  such  liaptismsto  be  repeated;  caihng  those  priests 
'^stolid"  who  re-baptize;  and  charging  them  with  doing, 
not  good,  but  injury.  The  Archbishop  then  proceeds  to 
say,  that  the  form  of  the  sacrament  in  the  vulgar  tongue, 
consists  not  only  in  the  signs,  but  also  in  the  order  of  the 
same  words  with  which  the  sacrament  itself  was  divinely 
instituted,  in  which  order  our  Lord  Christ,  by  those  very 
words  as  they  stand  in  the  Latin  tongue,  conferred  the  re- 
generative power.  Bat  if  the  priest  reasonably  doubts  whe- 
ther the  infant  was  baptized  in  the  prescribed  form,  let 
him  say  according  to  the  Decretals  :  If  thou  ari  bojHizecl, 
J  do  not  rebaptize  thee;  but  if  tJiou  art  not  yet  baptized, 
I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  G/iost.'^  And  thus  this  matter  stood, 
throaghout  the  whole  Western  Cluirch,  until  the  sixteenth 
century. 

I  have  now  traced  the  various  expressions  of  doctrine 
on  the  subjectof  heretical,  schismatical,  and  lay-Baptisms, 
from  the  writings  of  Tertnllian,  in  the  next  age  after  the 
apostles,  to  the  period  of  the  Reformation.     And  it  must 

tingat  pueros  propter  mortis  periculum  a  laicis  baptizari,  caveant  sa- 
cerdotes  ne  bapiisiniim  legitime  factum  audeant  iterari. 

(57)  lb. p.  446.  Cumenim  periclitantibus  parvulis  in  necessitatis 
inevitahili  articulo,  quibuscumque  laicis  vel  miilieribus  sit  concessum, 
in  casibus  hujusmodi  periclitantes  taliter  baplizare,  ethnjusmodi  bap- 
tismum  constet  ad  salutem  suflicere,  si  forma  del)ita  teneatui-,  nee  de- 
bere  taliter  baptizatos  iterum  baptizari.  Quidam  tamen  stolidi  sacer- 
dotes  sic  baptizatos  parvulos  non  sine  sacramenti  injuria  rebaptizant; 
quod,  ne  de  ccetero  fiat,  firmiter  inhibcmus. — Forma  autem  sacramenti 
in  vulgari  lingua,  consistit  non  solum  in  signis,  verum  etiam  inordine 
eorundem  verborum,  quibus  ipsum  est  divinitus  sacramentum  institu- 
tum,  quo  Christus  Dominus  illis  verbis  et  taliter  ordinatis,  ut  sunt 
in  lingua  Latina,  regenerativam  contulit  potestatem. — Quod  si  sacer- 
dos  rationabiliter  dubitet,  an  parvulus  in  forma  debita  baptizatus  sit, 
tenens  modum  Decretalis,  cum  Exorcismi^  et  Catechismo  dicat:  Si 
baptizatus,  ego  non  rebaptizo  te  ,-  sisnondum  baptizatus  es,  ego  baptize  te, 
innomine  Patris,  et  Filii,  et   Spirittis  Saudi. 


56 

have  been  obvious,  as  I  proceeded,  that  the  whole  form- 
ed one  continuous  chain,  completely  sustaining  the  last 
decision  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  utterly  subversive 
of  the  claims  so  confidently  put  forth  by  the  writers  on  the 
other  side,  to  any  positive  ecclesiastical  authoritJ^ 

It  has  been  already  stated,  that  the  first  name  of  note 
which  could  be  adduced  against  the  ancient  and  estab- 
lished practice  of  the  Church,  was  that  of  the  celebrated 
Calvin.  And  it  is  well  known  that  his  followers  in  the 
Church  of  England,  the  Puritans  in  the  days  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  singled  out  this  very  allowance  of  lay-Baptism 
as  one  point  of  accusation  against  the  Church.  It  may  be 
well,  therefore,  that  I  should  add  a  few  extracts  from 
Whitgift,  Hooker,  Bancroft,  &c.,  to  show  how  their  ca- 
vils were  answered. 

Thus  Archbishop  Whitgift  addresses  Cartwright,* 
"Whereas  you  say  that  the  minister  is  one  of  the  chief 
parts,  and  as  it  were  of  the  life  of  the  sacrament,  in  so 
weighty  a  cause  and  great  a  matter,  it  had  been  well  if 
you  had  used  some  authority  of  Scripture  or  testimony 
of  learned  authors:  for  so  far  as  I  can  read,  the  opinion 
of  all  learned  men  is,  that  the  essential  form,  and,  as  it 
were,  the  life  of  Baptism,  is  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Gliost;  which 
form  being  observed,  the  sacrament  remaineth  in  full  force 
and  strength,  by  whomsoever  it  be  ministered. — And 
certainly,  if  the  being  of  the  sacrament  depended  npoii 
man  in  any  respect,  we  were  but  in  a  miserable  case  ; 
for  we  should  always  be  in  doubt  whether  we  were  right- 
ly baptized  or  no  :  but  it  is  most  true  that  the  force  or 
strength  of  the  sacrament  is  not  in  the  man,  he  he  minis- 
ter or  not  minister,  be  he  good  or  evil,  but  in  God  him- 
self, &c.  This  I  speak,  not  to  bring  confusion  into  the 
Church,  (for  as  I  said  before,  let  men  take  heed  that  they 
usurp  not  an  office  whereiinto  they  be  not  called,  for  God 
will  call  them  to  an  account  for  so  doing,)  but  to  teach  a 
truth,  to  take  a  yoke  of  doubtfulness  from  men's  con- 

•  Defence  of  the  Answer  to  the  Admonition,  Tract  ix,  Ch.  5,  p.  519. 


57 

sciences,  and  to  resist  an  error  not  much  differing  from 
Donalisrn  and  ^nahaptism.'' 

The  judgment  of  the  justly  celebrated  Hooker  was 
the  same.  *"If,  therefore,"  saith  he,  addressing  the  same 
objector,  Cartwright,  "  it  come  to  pass,  that  in  teaching 
publicly"  or  privately,  or  in  delivering  this  blessed  sacra- 
ment of  regeneration,  some  unsanctified  hand,  contrary  to 
Christ's  supposed  ordinance,  do  intrude  itself  to  execute 
that,  whereunto  the  laws  of  God  and  his  Cliurch  have  de- 
puted others,  which  of  these  two  opinions  seemeth  morea- 
greeable  with  equity,  ours  that  disallow  what  is  done  a- 
roiss,  yet  make  not  the  force  of  the  word  and  the  sacraments, 
much  less  their  very  nature,  to  depend  on  the  minister's 
authority  and  calling  ;  or  else  their's  which  defeat,  dis- 
annul and  annihilate  both,  in  respect  of  tliat  one  only 
personal  defect,  there  being  not  any  law  of  God  which 
sailh,  that  if  the  minister  be  incompetent,  his  word  shall 
be  no  word,  his  Baptism  no  Baptism."  "He  which  teach- 
eth,  and  is  not  sent,  loseth  the  reward,  but  yet  retaineth 
the  name  of  a  teacher;  his  usurped  actions  have  in  him 
the  same  nature  which  they  have  in  others,  although 
they  yield  him  not  the  same  comfort.  And  if  these  two 
cases  be  peers,  the  case  of  doctrine  and  the  case  of  Bap- 
tism, both  alike,  sith  no  defect  in  their  vocation  that 
teach  the  truth  is  able  to  take  away  the  benefit  thereof 
from  him  which  heareth,  wherefore  should  the  trant  of  a 
lawful  calling  in  them  that  baptize,  make  Baptism  to  be 
vain  .?" 

"  In  the  conference  at  Hampton  Court,  Bishop  Bilson 
declared,  that  to  deny  private  persons  to  baptize  in  case 
of  necessity  were  ^0  cros.<;  cf//««^/<7Mz7_(/ and  the  common 
practice  of  the  Church,  it  being  a  rule  agreed  on  among 
divines,  that  the  minister  is  not  of  the  essence  of  the  sa- 
crameyit.  To  this  Archbishop  Bancroft  fully  assented, 
and  further  declared  that  the  compilers  of  the  English  Lit- 
urgy expressly  intended  a  permission  of  private  persons 
to  baptize  in  case  of  necessity  ;  in  proof  of  which  asser- 

*  Eccles.Pol.  B.5.  §63. 


58 

tion  he  produced  some  of  their  letters.  Even  king  James 
himself,  at  whose  suggestion  the  rubric  was  altered,  de- 
clared his  titter  dislike  ofallrehaptizations  of  those  uliom 
womenor  laics  had  baptlzed.^^'^  So  that  although  the  pas- 
sage was  altered  in  the  Prayer  Book,  by  which  lay-Bap- 
tism had  previously  been  recommended,  yet  the  settled 
judgment  in  favour  of  its  validity  was  not  designed  to 
be  changed,  even  by  the  monarch  who  procured  the  al- 
teration. To  impute  any  such  change  to  the  Church  of 
England  on  such  insufficient  ground,  (as  I  am  truly 
sorry  to  say,  is  currently  done  by  the  writers  on  the  other 
side,)  has  always  appeared  to  me  a  most  unwarrantable 
attack  upon  her  character.  From  the  time  of  Edward 
VI,  to  that  of  the  Scottish  king  who  had  been  brought 
up  in  the  school  of  Calvin,  she  enjoined  lay-Baptism  in 
necessity,  as  the  whole  catholic  Church  had  done  from 
the  primitive  day.  And  when,  at  the  Hampton-Court 
conference,  her  bishops  reluctantly  consented  to  with- 
draw the  public  allowance  of  lay-I3aptism,  by  ordering 
that  a  laivfid  minister-  should  be  called,  they  approved, 
instead  of  condemning,  the  doctrine  of  the  previous  ages. 
Indeed,  Dr.  Waterland  himself  confesses  t  that  the  ivhole 
stream  of  her  divines  have  been  of  one  consent  upon 
the  subject,  and  therefore  it  seems  worse  than  idle  to  de- 
ny that  the  tlieological  doctrine  of  the  Church  has  con- 
tinued precisely  the  same.  lam  aware  of  no  one  among 
her  bishops,  from  the  reformation  down,  who  has  pro- 
nounced lay-Baptism  invalid,  unless  it  be  Bishop  Tay- 
\ov,X  and  surely  a  single  exception,  amongst  so  large  a 
number,  may  well  be  said  to  prove  the  rule. 

In  concurrence  with  the  Church  of  England  on  the 
point,  the  learned  Bingham  states,  that  the  Greek  Church, 
the  Russian  Church,  the  Lutheran  Church,  the  Helvetic 
Churches, — in  av/ord,  the  wliole  Christian  world,  with  the 
solitaryexceptionofthe  foUowersofCalvin — hold  thesame 
doctrine.     The  Church  of  Rome,  indeed,  has  gone  beyond 

*  See  Rev.  E.  Kelsall's  ansM'er  to  Waterland. 

•j-  Waterland's  Works,  Vol.  X.  p.  185,  last  edition. 

\  Bingham,  Schol.  History  of  Lay-Baptism,  Ch.  iii.  §  5. 


SB' 

it,  maintaining  that  Baptisnri  is  valid  not  only  when  ad- 
ministered by  those  who  have  been  baptized  themselves, 
bat  also  even  if  administered  by  an  utter  alien  from  the 
Christian  covenant,  a  Jew,  Turk,  or  Pagan.  This  gross 
corruption,  however,  is  novel,  and  does  not  appear  to  have 
received  any  official  sanction  until  it  was  decreed,  to- 
wards the  close  of  the  eleventh  century,  by  pope  Urban 
the  Second.* 

I  now  turn  to  the  difficulties  which  encumber  the  op- 
posite doctrine.  And  these  appear  to  my  mind  to  be 
neither  few  nor  trifling.  For,  in  the  first  place,  it  is 
acknowledged  on  all  hands  that  the  prevalence  of  lay- 
Baptism  throughout  Christendom,  for  many  successive 
centurieSj'was  great, and  almost  universal.  In  England,  es- 
pecially, the  Baptisms  of  the  Independents,  and  other  dis- 
senters from  Episcopacy,  iiave  been,  and  still  continue  to 
be,  exceedingly  numerous.  So  that  if  lay-Baptism  be  in- 
valid, it  is  doubtful  whether  there  be  any  baptizedpersons 
upon  earth  at  the  present  day,  and  especially  it  is  doubtful 
whether  the  succession  of  the  ministry  has  not  failed  alto- 
gether. 

To  this  very  serious  difficulty,  the  writers  on  the  other 
side  have  given  no  better  answer  than  asupposition,  that 
ordination  would  continue  the  ministry  whether  men 
were  baptized  or  no.  But  the  objections  to  this  ingeni- 
ous hypothesis  seem  to  my  mind  perfectly  insuperable. 
For  in  the  first  place,  the  proposition  is  at  open  war  with 
all  tradition,  that  a  man  unbaptized  could  possibly  be  a 
subject  of  ordination.  Next,  it  is  confessedly  an  hypo- 
thesis devised  to  meet  the  difficulty,  and  does  not  profess 
to  state  what  is,  but  what  may  be  ;  as  if  the  very  exis- 
tence of  the  Christian  Church  should  be  left  dependent 
on  conjectural  possibilities.  Thirdly,  it  asks  us  to  sweep 
away  the  whole  consentaneous  judgment  of  the  cath- 
olic Church  from  the  earliest  ages,  and  be  content  with 
this  modern  fancy  in  its  stead.  But  this  is  not  the  whole 
of  the  difficulty.  For  it  is  granted  on  all  sides,  that  it  is 
in  Baptism  we  are  formally  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit, 

•  lb.  Bingham's  Schol.  Hist.  ch.  i.  §  24,  and  Sequel,  and  Potter  on 
Church  Gov. 


60 

born  into  the  Church,  the  Commonwealth  of  Israel,  and 
made  capable,  ecclesiastically,  of  receiving  Confirmation 
and  the  Eucharist,  as  members  of  the  body  of  Christ.  And 
therefore  these  writers  ask  us  to  believe,  that  men  can  be 
ordained  as  officers  of  a  commonwealth  to  which  they  do 
not  belong,  and  ministers  of  a  society  into  which  they  are 
not  authorized  to  enter;  that  they  can  dispense  the  sacra- 
ments to  others  which  they  have  not  received  themselves, 
and  that  they  can  be  appointed  ecclesiastical  rulers  and 
teachers,  before  they  are  ecclesiastically  born  !  It  is  not 
my  province  to  question  the  sincerity  with  which  this 
novel  idea  has  been  pressed  ;  but  I  should  be  deficient 
in  sincerity  myself  if  I  did  not  frankly  say,  that  it  seems 
to  involve  a  tissue  of  absurdities. 

My  second  difficulty  arises  out  of  the  very  argument 
which,  in  the  minds  of  some,  would  doubtless  constitute 
a  recommendation.  Every  consistent  Churchman  is 
obliged  to  deny  that  the  ministry  of  the  non-episcopal 
Churches  is  a  regular,  cifostolic  ministry.  For  we  all,  with 
very  few  exceptions,  maintain  the  apostolic  and  divine 
institution  of  episcopacy  ;  we  all  maintain  that  the  work 
of  ordination  belongs,  ofrigJit,  to  none  but  bishops,  who, 
as  ordainers  and  governors  in  chief  over  the  Church,  were 
appointed  to  succeed  the  apostles.  It  results,  of  course, 
that  we  cannot  regard  the  non-episcopal  ministry  as  men 
regularly  ordained,  but  rather  as  laymen,  exercising  minis- 
terial functions  according  to  a  rule  of  human,  instead  of 
divi7ie,  of  modern  instead  of  apostolic  institution.  In  other 
words,  we  are  compelled  to  regard  them  as  ministers  de 
facto,hut  not  dejure.  Hence  their  Baptisms  are  lay  Bap- 
tisms. They  are  also  liable  to  the  charge  of  schism,  and 
some  are  not  free  from  the  more  grievous  infection  of 
lieresy.  Now  it  is  altogether  in  reference  to  this  multi- 
form portion  of  our  Christian  bretln-en  that  the  real  prac- 
tical difficulty  has  arisen.  Lay  Baptism  within  ourselves 
is  not  an  evil,  simply  because  it  does  not  exist.  The  doc- 
trine concerning  it  is  important  solely  in  reference  to 
those  around  us  ;  with  respect  to  whom  there  is,  truly, 
a  wide  difference  of  opinion.  For  while  some,  conceiving 
episcopacy  to  be  essential  to  the  very  being  of  a  Church, 


61 

legard  our  non-episcopal  brethren  as  having  neither  min- 
istry, nor  sacraments,  nor  part  nor  lot  in  the  Church  ca- 
tholic, there  are  others,  (and  I  trust  that  they  form  the 
great  body  of  our  communion,)  who  hold  a  very  opposite 
doctrine  ;  believing,  indeed,  that  the  want  of  the  aposto- 
lic ministry  is  a  defect,  and  a  most  serious  defect,  in  their 
ecclesiastical  constitution,  but  gladly  allowing,  notwith- 
standing this,  that  they  belong  to  the  Church  catholic  by 
reason  of  the  common  faith,  that  they  have  the  sacra- 
ments in  their  essence,  though  not  in  their  oi^der,  and  that 
just  so  far  as  they  have  retained  the  important  features 
of  the  gospel  system  of  salvation  through  our  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ,  they  constitute  a  true,  though  ?rre^M/ar  portion 
of  his  people. 

On  the  first  of  these  two  theories,  it  is  easy  to  account 
for  the  peculiar  favour  which  some  of  my  respected  and 
beloved  brethren  have  shown  towards  the  doctrine,  that 
Baptisms  administered  by  the  non-episcopal  ministry,  are, 
in  strictness,  no  Baptisms  at  all.  But  when  first  preached 
in  our  mother  Church,  this  theory  found  small  acceptance 
amongst  her  clergy.  Nor  would  it  possess  any  stronger 
influence  now,  as  I  conceive,  if  it  were  not  connected 
with  the  Oxford  Tracts,  which  have  been,  from  the  be- 
ginning, peculiarly  hostile  to  the  English  Dissenters. 
A  kindred  spirit  has  been  active  amongst  ourselves.  To 
discredit  the  claims  of  every  non-episcopal  society  as 
much  as  possible,  to  deny  them  all  the  characteristics  of  a 
true  Church,  to  set  Rome  in  advantageous  contrast  with 
their  disunion,  and  treat  them  with  bitterness,  contempt, 
and  even  ridicule,  has  been,  unhappily,  for  some  years 
past,  the  favorite  work  of  many  gifted  minds,  on  both 
sides  of  the  Atlantic.  And  hence,  the  time  and  the  cir- 
cumstances do  not  permit  me  to  doubt,  that  the  zeal  so  suc- 
cessfully displayed  of  late  in  favour  of  re-baptization  at 
our  own  highest  seat  of  theological  learning,  and  spread.- 
ing  from  thence  into  my  own  diocese,  is  the  legitimate 
child  of  the  Tractarian  theology. 

Now  this,  to  me,  is  another  source  of  difficulty.     I 
learned  Divinity  from  the  books  of  men  who  felt  kindly 
towards  every  branch  of  the  reformed  Churches,  and  ac- 
6 


62 

knowledged  them,  notwithstanding  those  defects  which 
prevented  their  full  inter-communion,  as  Christian  breth- 
ren, beloved  for  the  sake  of  the  common  faith,  and  con- 
fessed to  be  of  the  same  great  Household,  of  which  Christ 
is  Lord  and  Master.  I  have  already  proved,  1  trust,  that 
the  repetition  of  Baptisms  administered  by  such  as  these, 
is  not  lawful,  since  the  primitive  Church  forbade  it,  and 
the  Church  of  England,  as  well  before  as  since  the  refor- 
mation, has  done  the  same  ;  and  we,  as  derived  from  her, 
are  bound  by  the  laws  which  she  derived  from  the  Church 
universal.  But  to  this  I  add  the  further  objection,  that 
in  my  humble  judgment,  it  is  hostile  to  the  best  interests 
of  Christian  charity  and  peace  ;  calculated  to  excite  the 
worst  feelings  of  sectarian  animosity,  and  therefore  likely 
to  inflame  and  irritate,  rather  than  to  heal,  the  wounds  of 
the  daughter  of  Zion. 

But  I  shall  not  dwell  longer  upon  this  part  of  the  ques- 
tion, since  it  is  designed  to  be  the  theme  of  ray  next  com- 
munication. I  proceed,  therefore,  to  the  third  and  last 
difficulty,  with  respect  to  which  I  am  sure  that  I  can  cal- 
culate on  your  serious  reflection,  if  not  on  your  concur- 
rence. 

Look,  then,  beloved  brethren,  at  the  startling  results  of 
this  doctrine  of  re-baptization.  In  order  to  adopt  it,'we  must 
violate  our  adherence  to  the  earliest  councils  of  the  primitive 
Church,  and  openly  repudiate  the  best  settled  maxims  of 
catholic  antiquity.  We  mustcontradictthe  universal  sense 
of  Christendom  at  the  present  day,  with  the  single  exception 
of  those  who  maintain  the  peculiar  notions  of  Calvin. 
We  must  set  up  a  standard  of  doctrine  and  practice  for 
which  we  can  adduce  no  real  or  positive  authority.  We 
must  condemn  the  whole  teaching  of  the  great  divines  of 
England,  and  that  of  our  own  first  race  of  bishops,  but 
just  passed  away.  We  must  brand  with  error  the  re- 
peated decisions  of  ecclesiastical  courts  in  our  mother 
Church,  and  bring  shame  upon  our  claims  to  ecclesiastical 
unity ;  since  a  clergyman  shall  be  suspended  three  months 
on  the  other  side  of  the  water  for  acting  on  an  opinion, 
which  here  he  shall  be  encouraged  to  maintain  as  pub- 
licly as  he  can.     And  while  we  are  constantly  reminding 


63 

others  of  the  rule  of  Vincent,  Quod  semper,  quod  ubique, 
quod  ah  omnibus,  we  shall  be  taking  this  novel  course  for 
the  sake  of  a  notion  which  was  confined  to  a  fraction  of 
the  Church,  even  in  the  days  of  Cyprian  ;  which  was  ne- 
ver broached  again  until  the  Refonnalion,  which  was  re- 
pudiated both  in  theory  and  practice,  by  our  forefathers; 
and  which, amongst  ourselves, has  only  begun  to  find  open 
and  decided  favour  since  our  last  General  Convention. 
Now  it  is  not  possible  that  we  can  have  peace  and  unan- 
imity, even  throughout  our  own  borders,  in  the  encour- 
agement of  an  innovation  like  this.  The  only  maxim 
which  can,  under  God,  preserve  us  from  distraction,  is 
the  fundamental  principle  of  episcopacy.  State  super 
antiquas  vias.  We  shall  agree  harmoniously  in  main- 
taining our  old  and  established  doctrines,  but  we  never 
shall  agree  in  new  ones,  unless,  indeed,  we  were  ready 
to  adopt  the  Roman  policy  of  making  some  one  diocese 
the  Mater  Ecclesia,  and  submitting  to  her  dictates,  as  to 
the  voice  of  infallibility. 

I  am  aware,  however,  that  there  is  another  mode  of 
regarding  this  very  serious  matter,  which  I  confess  my- 
self quite  unable  to  reconcile  with  any  theological  prin- 
ciple, I  have  heard  it  said,  and  seen  it  printed,  that  a 
man  who  has  received  Baptism  from  some  non-episcopal 
minister,  and  afterwards  desires  to  become  an  episcopa- 
lian, should  be  considered  as  sufficiently  baptized  if  he 
be  hhnself  satisfied  with  his  Baptism.  But  that  ifJie  has 
become  dissatisfied,  he  is  to  be  indulged  with  a  repetition 
of  Baptism,  either  in  the  hypothetical  form  or  otherwise, 
in  order  to  satisfy  his  scruples  and  set  his  mind  at  rest. 

Now  here,  I  apprehend,  is  a  course  of  argument,  which 
no  ingenuity  can  place  on  a  solid  ground.  The  hypothe- 
tical form  was  never  designed  for  such  a  purpose  as  the 
satisfying  a  scruple  concernnig  the  essential  elements  of 
a  valid  Baptism.  It  was  a  form  introduced  many  centu- 
ries before  the  Reformation,  when  the  system  of  the 
Church  was  perfectly  settled,  and  no  man  was  at  liberty 
to  depart  from  it.  And  the  sole  purpose  to  which  it  was 
applied  was  not  to  satisfy  doubts  about  doctrine,  which 
did  not  then,  and  ought  not  now  to  exist ;  but  to  satisfy 


64 

doubts  about  the  fact  whether  the  person  had  ever  re- 
ceived Baptism  at  all.  The  clergyman,  therefore,  as  I 
conceive,  has  no  right  to  use  the  hypothetical  form,  when 
he  himself  is  j)erfectly  satisfied  that  the  applicant  has  al- 
ready been  validly  baptized.  For  in  the  whole  devo- 
tional part  of  that  solemn  office,  the  minister  would  be 
trifling  with  the  Deity,  if  he  believed  in  his  heart  that 
God  liad  done  already,  in  the  first  Baptism,  what  he 
knows  can  only  be  done  once,  and  yet  should  gravely 
beseech  the  Almighty  to  do  the  same  spiritual  ivork 
again,  merely  to  gratify  the  presumption  or  obstinacy  of 
the  ignorant  party.  The  individual  may  come  in  his 
simplicity  indeed,  and  state  his  difficulties ;  but  it  is  his 
duty  to  be  satisfied  with  his  Baptism,  if  the  Church  which 
he  desires  to  enter  considers  it  sufficient.  And  if  he  re- 
fuses to  practise  this  first  lesson  in  churchmanship,  name- 
ly, the  submitting  his  private  notions  to  the  decision  of 
the  Church,  I  should  hold  it  to  be  the  clergyman's  duty 
not  to  humour  his  waywardness  by  committing  a  species 
of  sacrilege,  and  taking  God's  holy  name  in  vain  ;  but  to 
counsel  and  pray  for  him,  that  the  Lord  might  grant  him 
the  grace  of  humility,  and  bring  him  to  a  better  mind. 
If  this  course  failed,  after  due  time,  to  satisfy  the  party, 
1  should  advise  the  minister  to  let  him  go  without  hesita- 
tion ;  fully  persuaded  that  he  was  not  yet  prepared  to  de- 
vote himself  to  that  Redeemer  who  said  :  If  he  hear  not 
the  Church,  let  him  he  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a 
'publican. 

It  is  impossible  for  me,  therefore,  to  justify  the  admin- 
istering of  Baptism,  when  the  minister  has  one  opinion 
about  its  propriety,  and  the  candidate  has  another.  For 
if  either  party  lacks  faith  in  the  act,  he  commits  an  aw- 
ful profanation.  And  especially  if  the  ordained  servant 
of  the  sanctuary,  who  is  bound  to  obey  the  Church,  and 
not  to  encourage,  but  drive  away  all  strange  doctrines — 
if  he  lends  himself  to  a  delusion,  and  even  performs  a 
solemn  service  addressed  to  the  Almighty  in  which  he 
can  himself  have  no  faith  at  the  time — I  have  no  lan- 
guage strong  enough  to  express  my  sense  of  such  a  sa- 
crilege, nor  my  apprehensions  for  the  result,  if  the 


65 

Church  could  be  induced  to  stamp  it  with  her  formal  ap- 
probation. That  good,  and  pious,  and  intelligent  men 
have  done  this  thing  themselves,  and  have  recommended 
it  to  others,  may  perhaps  be  quite  true.  But  this  is  no  ar- 
gument in  the  settlement  of  any  theological  question. 

And  now,  my  beloved  and  respected  brethren,  before  I 
close  this  first  of  my  communications,  allow  me  to  solicit 
your  attention  to  a  few  remarks  on  the  propriety  of  the 
course  which  I  have  adopted — remarks  which  I  should 
not  have  conceived  necessary,  if  I  had  not  seen,  with  the 
deepest  regret,  the  censures  published  in  some  of  our 
periodicals,  upon  the  notice  which  our  venerable  pre- 
siding Bishop  and  the  Bishop  of  Ohio  have  thought  fit 
to  take,  of  one  of  the  subjects  contemplated  in  my  own 
proposed  series.  These  well-known  and  approved  mem- 
bers of  our  episcopal  college  have  been  styled  Dictators, 
and  have  been  charged  with  interfering  wncanonically 
with  the  Bishop  of  New  York,  because  they  have  pre- 
sumed to  dissent,  in  print,  from  his  opinion.  Doubtless 
I  shall  be  exposed  to  the  same  censure,  unless  I  shall  be 
so  fortunate  as  to  convince  the  brethren  concerned,  that 
neither  the  bishops  first  named,  nor  myself,  nor  any  other 
member  of  the  episcopal  body,  can  be  rightfully  blamed, 
for  publishing  our  sentiments  upon  all  or  any  subject  in- 
volved in  the  official  acts  of  each  other,  provided  it  be 
done  in  a  proper  spirit  of  Christian  courtesy  and  afFec-^ 
tion. 

In  order  to  set  this  important  matter  in  its  proper 
light,  I  shall  first  quote  from  No.  78  of  the  Oxford  Tracts, 
an  admirable  extract  from  the  learned  Bingham,*  in 
which  I  shall  have  the  satisfaction  of  combining,  in  one, 
the  authority  of  that  excellent  writer,  with  that  of  our 
Tractarian  friends  which  some  might  deem  preferable, 
upon  the  true  rule  of  episcopal  unity. 

"  To  maintain  the  unity  of  faith  entire,"  says  Bingham, 
speaking  of  the  primitive  system,  "  every  Church  was 
ready  to  give  each  other  their  mutual  assistance,  to  op- 

•  Tracts  for  the  Times,  Vol.  3,  p.  506  of  Am.  Ed.  Also  Bing.  Orig, 
Ecc.  "Vol.  ii.  pp.  2, 14. 
6* 


66 

pose  all  fundamental  errors,  and  beat  down  heresy  at 
its  first  appearance  among  them.  The  whole  world  in 
this  respect  was  but  one  common  diocese,  the  episcopate 
was  an  universal  thing,  and  every  bishop  had  his  share 
in  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  have  an  equal  interest  in  the 
whole  ;  as  I  have  more  fully  showed  in  another  place, 
where  I  observed,  that  in  things  not  appertaining  to  the 
faith,  bishops  were  not  to  meddle  with  other  men's  dio- 
cese, but  only  to  mind  the  business  of  their  own  :  but 
when  the  faith  or  welfare  of  the  Church  lay  at  stake,  and 
religion  was  manifestly  invaded,  then,  by  this  rule  of 
their  being  but  one  episcopacy,  every  other  diocese  was 
as  much  their  diocese  as  their  own,  and  no  human  laws 
or  canons  could  tie  up  their  hands  from  performing  such 
acts  of  the  episcopal  office  in  any  part  of  the  world,  as 
tiiey  thougiit  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  faith  and 
religion.  This  was  the  ground  of  their  meeting  in  Sy- 
nods, Provincial  or  National,  and  sending  their  joint  opi- 
nions and  advice  from  one  Church  to  another.  The 
greatest  part  of  Church  History  is  made  up  of  such  acts 
as  these,  so  that  it  were  next  to  impertinent  to  refer  to 
any  particulars.  I  only  observe  one  thing  farther  upon 
this  head,  that  the  intermeddling  with  other  men's  con- 
cerns, which  would  have  been  accounted  a  real  breach 
of  unity  in  many  other  cases,  was  in  this  case  thought  so 
necessary,  that  there  was  no  certain  wa)?"  to  preserve  the 
unity  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  Faith  without  it.  And 
as  an  instance  of  this,  I  have  noted  in  the  fore-cited  book, 
that  though  it  was  against  the  ordinary  rule  of  the 
Church  for  any  bishop  to  ordain  in  another  man's  dio- 
cese, yet  in  case  a  bishop  turned  heretic,  and  persecuted 
the  orthodox,  and  would  ordain  none  but  heretical  men 
to  establish  heresy  in  the  diocese,  m  that  case  any  ortho- 
dox bishop  was  not  only  authorized,  but  obliged,  as  op- 
portunity served,  and  the  needs  of  the  Church  required, 
to  ordain  Catholic  teachers  in  such  a  diocese,  to  oppose 
the  malignant  designs  of  the  enemy,  and  stop  the  growth 
of  heresy,  which  might  otherwise  take  deep  root,  and 
spread  and  overrun  the  Church.  Thus  Athanasius  and 
the  famous  Eusebius  of  Samosata  went  about  the  world 


67 

in  the  prevalency  of  the  Arian  heresy,  ordaining  in  every 
Church  where  they  came,  such  clergy  as  were  necessary 
to  support  the  orthodox  cause  in  such  a  time  of  distress 
and  desolation.  And  this  was  so  far  from  being  reckon- 
ed a  breach  of  the  Church's  unity,  though  against  the 
letter  of  a  canon  in  ordinary  cases,  that  it  was  necessary 
to  be  done,  in  such  a  state  of  affairs,  to  maintain  the  uni- 
ty of  the  Catholic  Faith,  whicli  every  bishop  was  obliged 
to  defend,  not  only  in  his  own  diocese,  but  in  all  parts  of 
the  world,  by  virtue  of  that  rule  which  obliges  bishops 
in  weighty  affairs  to  take  care  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
and  requires  all  Churches  in  time  of  danger  to  give  mu- 
tual aid  and  assistance  to  one  another." 

Now  here,  beloved  brethren,  is  the  true  rule  of  epis- 
copal unity,  stated  fairly  and  indisputably  from  the  max- 
ims of  the  primitive  Church.  By  it  the  bishops  are  bound, 
in  the  sight  of  God,  and  in  the  fulfilment  of  their  solemn 
consecration  vows,  not  to  except  those  mistakes  which 
are  committed  by  each  other ;  for  otherwise,  how,  I  be- 
seech you,  could  we  attempt  the  duty  of"  banishing  and 
driving  away  from  the  Church  all  erroneous  and  strange 
doctrines,^'  if  tlie  fact  that  one  of  our  own  body  had  pa- 
tronized, or  seemed  inclined  to  patronize  them,  were  to 
cover  them  with  the  mantle  of  protection  ?  Nay,  on  the 
contrary,  does  not  the  high  office  of  a  bishop  give  a  pro- 
portionate importance  to  those  errors  in  judgment,  to 
which  the  best  men  are  liable  ?  And  if  he  errs,  since 
all  are  fallible,  from  whom  ought  he  to  desire  the  cor- 
rection of  his  misjudgment,  if  not  from  those  who  must 
needs  appreciate  most  fairly  the  dilRculties  of  his  office, 
feel  most  tenderly  for  the  mistakes  to  which  themselves 
are  equally  exposed,  and  guard  most  carefully  the  sacred 
rights  of  the  order  to  which  they  belong  ?  Most  distinct- 
ly and  emphatically,  therefore,  do  I  unite  in  the  declara- 
tion of  Bingham,  that  without  this  fraternal  watchfulness 
of  the  bishops  over  each  other,  in  all  matters  which  in- 
volve the  general  doctrines  and  faith  of  the  Church,  if/iere 
is  no  way  of  preserving  unity.  And  I  must,  for  myself, 
affectionately  recommend  my  editorial  brethren  to  study 
the   ^^p^rst  principles"  of  episcopal  order,  before   they 


68 

again  attach  to  a  duty  like  this,  the  terms  of  popery, 
officiousness,  and  dictation. 

Even  in  our  own  branch  of  the  Church,  young  as  it 
is  with  respect  to  its  distinct  organization,  the  same  thing, 
in  substance,  has  occurred  repeatedly.  When  our  pre- 
sent venerable  Presiding  Bishop  commenced  the  enter- 
prise which  resulted,  by  the  singular  blessing  of  Christ, 
in  the  erection  of  Kenyon  College  witliits  attached  The- 
ological Seminary,  did  not  the  excellent  Bishop  Hobart 
exercise,  as  an  undoubted  right,  the  power  of  open  oppo- 
sition ?  Nay,  did  he  not  carry  that  opposition  across 
the  broad  Atlantic,  and  display  the  painful  spectacle  be- 
fore the  eyes  of  our  English  brethren?  And  yet  the 
doctrines  and  the  faith  of  the  Clnirch  were  not,  by  any 
one,  supposed  to  be  involved  on  that  occasion,  but  sim- 
ply the  interests  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary, 
which  that  conscientious  and  high-minded  bishop,  honest- 
ly (although,  as  I  believe,  quite  erroneously,)  conceived 
to  be  in  danger,  if  each  diocese  were  allowed  to  set  up  a 
separate  institution. 

A  second  instance  occurred,  when  the  same  distin- 
guished individual,  whose  memory  our  whole  Church 
has  so  much  delighted  to  honour,  thought  himself  obliged 
to  refuse  Holy  Orders  to  one  who  has  long  been  a  well 
known  presbyter  of  Pennsylvania.  The  candidate 
removed  to  Massachusetts,  and  was  ordained  by  Bishop 
Griswold.  Did  not  Bishop  Hobart  censure,  openly  and 
strongly,  this  act  of  his  episcopal  colleague  ?  And  who 
could  question  his  right  to  censure,  if  he  believed  con- 
scientiously, that  an  error  had  been  committed,  which 
menaced,  not  the  doctrines  or  faith  of  the  Church,  but  the 
confidence  and  mutual  comity  of  the  bishops  towards 
each  other  ? 

Again,  when  it  pleased  a  few  of  our  body  to  adopt  a 
different  opinion  from  the  received  judgment  of  the 
Council  of  Ephesus,touching  the  heresy  of  Nestorius,  and 
to  acknowledge  Mar-Yohanna,the  Nestorian  bishop, as  an 
orthodox  prelate  of  the  Church  catholic,  did  not  our  bre- 
thren, the  bishops  of  the  venerable  Church  of  Scotland, 
direct  an  epistle  to  one  of  our  number,  complaining  of 


69 

the  act,  on  the  ground  that  it  appeared  to  them  utterly 
inconsistent  with  tlie  acknowledged  authority  of  the 
first  four  General  Councils,  by  which  all  questions  of  he- 
resy are  to  be  tried  according  to  the  express  words  of  the 
English  Canon  Law  ? 

But  r  pass  from  these  modern  and  recent  instances  to 
a  far  more  illustrious  example.  When  St.  Peter,  by  di- 
vine direction,  had  extended  the  privileges  of  the  gospel 
to  the  heathen  convert,  Cornelius,  we  read  that 
on  his  return  to  Jerusalem,  They  of  the  circum- 
cision contended  with  him,  saying:  Thou  wentest  in 
to  men  uncircumcised,  and  didst  eat  uiih  thetn.  (Acts 
xi,  2.)  It  does  not  seem  that  any  man  thought  this 
bold  remonstrance  was  an  officious  intermeddling 
with  the  rights  of  St.  Peter  ;  nor  did  he,  for  a  moment, 
disclaim  the  power  of  his  brethren  to  call  him  to  account, 
whenever  they  supposed  that  he  had  acted  inconsistent- 
ly. On  the  contrary,  he  received  the  accusation  meekly, 
and  rehearsed  the  matter  from  the  beginning,  informing 
them  of  the  special  revelation  by  which  he  had  been 
guided  throughout,  and  concluding  with  that  beautiful 
sentence  of  pious  liumility  :  What  was  I,  that  I  should 
withstand  Godl 

Once  more.  When  the  same  great  Apostle  was  led 
away  by  his  fear  of  giving  offence  to  his  Jewish  brethren, 
(Gal.  ii.  11-14,)  and  withdrew  himself  from  his  former 
social  intercourse  with  the  Gentile  converts,  St.  Paul 
saith  to  the  Galatians  :  "  I  withstood  him  to  the  face,  he- 
cause  he  teas  to  be  blan-ied.^'  And  this  act  of  open  rebuke 
was  not  only  done  publicly,  "  before  them  a/l,''  (v.  14) 
but  it  was  placed  on  record  for  our  instruction  by  the 
inspiration  of  the  Most  High. 

Manifest,  then,  it  must  surely  be,  from  every  principle  of 
primitive  order,  of  modern  precedent,  nay — more  than  all 
— of  apostolic  example,  that  the  bishops  stand  in  no  need 
of  apology  when  they  feel  obliged  openly  to  dissent  from 
the  official  acts  and  opinions  of  each  other.  Nor  is  there 
any  difficulty  in  sustaining  the  propriety  of  such  a  course, 
even  by  an  appeal  to  judicial  and  legislative  analogy. 
For  we  all  know  that  it  is  the  duty  of  our  civil  tribunals 


70 

to  pronoLiiice  upon  the  official  decrees  of  every  co-ordi- 
nate jurisdiction  ;  and  there  is  scarcely  a  Governor  or  a 
Legislature  in  the  Union,  that  has  not  occasionally  re- 
buked those  acts  of  other  independent  States,  or  of  Con- 
gress itself,  which  have  seemed,  in  their  judgment,  to 
conflict  with  the  paramount  Articles  of  the  Constitution. 

I  confess  that  I  could  not  help  smiling  at  the  new 
proof  which  this  editorial  objurgation  has  afforded,  of  the 
Tnajesty  of  the  Periodical  Press.  A  presbyter  sharply 
denounces  two  bishops,  because  they  have  presumed  to 
dissent,  publickly,  from  the  official  course  of  one  of  their 
'  own  order;  without  appearing  at  all  conscious  that  he  was 
transcending  his  limits  as  a  presbyter,  far  more  widely, 
by  publishing  his  censure  upon  the?ji.  He  considers  him- 
self secure  in  the  fact,  that  he  was  acting  in  his  edi- 
torial CAPACITY  ;  and  doubtless,  in  the  general  mind  of 
our  community,  this  would  be  deemed  a  perfect-  jus- 
tification. The  simple,  but  irresistible  inference  is  the 
following:  that  the  modern  dignity  of  editorial  govern- 
ment, must  have  something  of  the  ancient  Patri- 
chate  about  it,  which  is  quite  superior  to  the  bishops 
of  the  Church;  teaching  with  a  more  efficient  influ- 
ence, censuring  with  a  more  commanding  authority,  and 
yet,  so  far,  as  I  have  yet  seen,  beyond  even  the  Patriarchs 
in  this  ;  that  is  wholly  irresponsible  to  any  earthly  tribu- 
nal, unless  it  be  the  vague  and  undefinable  phantom  call- 
ed Public  Opinion.  May  the  Lord  give  a  triple  portion 
of  his  wisdom  to  those  who  wield  the  dangerous  energies 
of  such  a  power,  for  they  need  it  all  ! 

But  it  is  time  that  I  should  close  this  first  part  of  my 
labour,  trusting  that  I  shall  be  enabled  to  complete  the  cir- 
cle of  subjects  proposed,  as  God  may  prosper  me.  With 
my  earnest  supplications  to  the  throne  of  grace,  that  the 
Almighty  Prince  of  peace  may  have  yon  in  his  holy 
keeping,  and  make  you  of  one  heart,  and  one  mind  in  all 
things,  I  commit  my  humble  work,  in  full  and  affection- 
ate confidence,  to  your  fraternal  judgment,  and  to  your 
prayers.  For  the  result  of  the  present  agitation,  I  have 
no  fears.  Bishops,  Clergy,  and  Laity — each  in  our  seve- 
ral offices,  and  all  severally  gifted  according  to  the  Lord's 


71 

good  pleasure, — yet  are  we  all  one  body  in  Christ,  and 
every  one  "  mem&ers  one  of  another.''^  In  the  spirit  of 
this  unity,  I  am  persuaded  that  we  shall  stand  fast  in  the 
old  paths,  RESISTING  INNOVATION.  Even  those  of  my  be- 
loved brethren  in  the  Episcopate,  from  whom  I  may  be 
compelled  to  differ,  will  be  of  one  accord  with  me  in  the 
great  practical  result,  however  we  may  reason  diversely 
upon  the  several  links  of  the  theory.  For  after  all  our 
theological  discussions,  we  shall  prove,  in  the  main,  to  be 
thoroughly  convinced,  that  the  efforts  of  our  Tractarian 
friends  to  reform  the  Reformation,  can  only  lead  to  end- 
less confusion  and  strife  ;  while  the  sacred  resolve  to  keep 
the  doctrines  of  diviiie  truth,  as  we  have  received 
THEM  FROM  OUR  FATHERS,  will,  uudcr  the  good  hand  of 
God,  preserve  and  perpetuate  our  peace;  and,  if  carried 
out  with  unwavering  faith  in  his  love  and  power,  secure, 
for  his  Church  and  for  ourselves,  a  rich  and  abundant 
blessing. 

I  remain, 

With  all  fraternal  affection  and  esteem, 
Your  brother  and  servant  in  Christ, 
JOHN  H.  HOPKINS, 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Vermont. 

Burlington,  Vt.,  October  19th,  1843. 


THE 


NOVELTIES  WHICH  DISTURB  OUR  PEACE. 


A  SECOND  LETTER 


ADDRESSED  TO  THE 


BISHOPS,  CLERGY,  AND  LAITY 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


BY  JOHN  HENRY  HOPKINS,  D.D. 

BISHOP  OP  THE  DIOCESE  OF  VERMONT. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
HERMAN  HOOKER— 178,  CHESTNUT  STREET. 

1844. 


Entered  according  to  the  act  of  congregs^  in  the  year  1844,  by  Herman 
HooKKR,  in  the  clerk's  office  of  the  district  court  of  the  eastern 
district  of  Pennsylvania. 


A   SECOND   LETTER,  &c. 


Respected  and  beloved  Brethren: 

According  to  the  arrangement  proposed  in  my  first  Let- 
ter, I  proceed  to  offer  some  observations  on  another  subject, 
which  I  cannot  help  considering  an  innovation — and  by  no 
means  an  unimportant  one — upon  ourold,and  fraternal  mode 
of  regarding  the  various  orthodox  churches  of  our  non-epis- 
copal brethren,  called,  in  England,  The  Dissenters,  In 
that  country,  this  term  vv^as  adopted  with  acknowledged 
correctness,  to  signify  those  who  had  thought  fit,  for  what- 
ever reason,  to  dissent  from  the  Church,  as  by  law  established. 
It  was,  therefore,  considered  a  legal,  rather  than  a  theologi- 
cal name,  and  as  it  conveyed  no  reproach  on  the  one  side, 
it  was  accepted  without  ofience  on  the  other.  It  followed, 
of  course,  as  we  have  all,  until  quite  recently,  admitted,  that 
in  this  country,  where  the  law  of  the  land  gives  equal  sanc- 
tion and  support  to  every  nominally  Christian  system,  there 
could  be  no  Dissenters,  for  the  very  plain  reason,  that  there 
is  no  Establishment.  And  it  seemed,  as  we  have  been  ac- 
customed to  regard  the  matter,  that  nothing  could  be  gained 
by  introducing  a  new  application  of  the  term  to  signify 
those  who  dissented  from  Episcopacy;  because,  in  this  mode 
of  using  the  word,  it  is  manifest  that  it  must  either  be  to- 
tally confined  to  our  own  vocabulary,  or  else  have  a  distinct 
meaning  in  every  division  of  Christendom,  For  just  as  the 
Episcopalian  might  employ  it  to  signify  a  dissenter  from 
episcopacy,  so  the  Presbyterian  might  employ  it  to  signify 
2 


a  dissenter  from  presbyterianism;  and  thus,  it  would  change 
its  signijicalion  in  the  dialect  of  every  party,  and  end  in 
having  no  meaning  at  all.  ^ 

This  used  to  be  considered  sound  common  sense,  and 
quite  consistent  with  churchmanship.  But  now,  some  of 
our  most  highly  esteemed  brethren  have  adopted  a  theory 
which  calls  for  a  restricted  application  of  the  word  Church, 
and  an  extended  use  of  the  word  Dissenter.  According 
to  this  hypothesis,  there  is  no  Church  except  the  episcopal, 
because  episcopacy  is  of  the  very  essence  of  the  Church, 
without  which  it  can  have  no  being.  Hence  it  is  said  to 
result,  that  whatever  portion  of  the  great  family  of  Christ 
has  retained  episcopacy,  along  with  an  orthodox  creed,  is 
an  unquestionable  part  of  the  true  Church,  while  those  por- 
tions that  have  lost  episcopacy,  have  thereby  ceased  to  be 
Churches  altogether.  And  inasmuch  as  the  word  Dissenter 
has  long  been  fixed  to  represent  those  classes  of  Christian 
professors  who  dissent  from  episcopacy  as  established  by  the 
laxf}  of  England,  much  more  is  it  thought  to  be  applicable 
to  those  who  dissent  from  episcopacy,  as  established  by  the 
law  of  God. 

Now  this  is,  undoubtedly,  an  ingenious  statement  of  the 
case,  but  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  its  adoption,  are  se- 
rious, and,  as  it  seems  to  my  mind,  insurmountable.  In 
the  first  place,  if  I  understand  the  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
episcopacy  is  not  of  its  essence,  but  only  of  its  order.  Se- 
condly, those  portions  of  Christendom  which  retain  the 
fundamental  verities  of  the  Christian  faith,  are  entitled,  for 
the  faith's  sake,  to  be  called  Churches,  although  they  have 
lost  the  apostolic  order  of  the  ministry.  And  therefore, 
in  my  humble  judgment,  the  new  restriction  of  the  term 
Church,  as  well  as  the  new  extension  of  the  term  Dissen- 
ter, ought  to  be  altogether  let  alone,  in  obedience  to  the 
better  standards  of  theological  truth;  to  say  nothing,  at 
present,  of  the  virtue  of  Christian  discretion. 


But  as  I  claim  no  authority  for  my  individual  opinions, 
I  am  bound  to  prove  that  these  assertions  are  in  accordance 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Church;  on  which  ground  alone  I 
should  think  myself  at  liberty  to  advocate  them.  For 
every  priest  ordained  amongst  us  is  under  a  solemn  pro- 
mise, that  he  will  give  his  '^failhful  diligence,  alicays  so  to 
minister  the  doctrine  and  sacraments,  and  the  discipline  of 
Christ,  3ls  the  Lord  hath  commanded,  and  As  this  Church 
HATH  RECEIVED  THE  SAME,"*  and  therefore,  if  1  could 
believe  that  the  church  had  received  the  new  opinions, 
I  should  be  the  last  to  gainsay  them.  This  I  am  quite  sure 
she  has  not  done.  It  is  very  certain,  however,  that  she  is 
not  a  little  disturbed  by  the  good  and  learned  men  who 
have  received  them,  without  waiting  for  her  consent  or 
approbation. 

1  shall  proceed,  accordingly,  as  in  the  question  of  Lay 
Baptism,  discussed  in  my  first  Letter,  to  state  the  declara- 
tions of  the  standards  of  the  Church  of  England  and  of  our 
own  Church,  in  relation  to  the  point;  and  I  shall  next  re- 
cur to  the  Scriptures,  appending,  for  the  gratification  of 
such  as  desire  them,  the  commentary  of  the  Fathers.  It 
will  then,  I  trust,  be  sufficiently  evident,  that  the  theory 
so  much  encouraged,  of  late,  amongst  us  with  regard  to  our 
non-episcopal  brethren,  is  opposed  to  the  real  doctrine  of 
our  Church.  And  connected  as  it  now  stands  with  an 
alarming  novelty,  which  the  last  few  years  have  trans- 
planted from  the  modern  school  of  Tractarian  divinity,  the 
topic  will  be  found  worth}',  if  I  mistake  not,  of  our  serious 
attention. 

The  first  question  to  be  settled,  is  this,  namely;  Whe- 
ther Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  very  being  of  the  Church 
of  Christ,  so  that  there  can  be  no  Church  where  there  is  no 
Episcopacy?  And  here  I  beg  leave  to  be  understood  as 
distinctly  maintaining  that  the  institution  of  the  episcopal 

*  See  the  second  interrogatory  of  the  ordinal,  for  the  office  of  Priests. 


6 

government  is  Divine,  because  Apostolic.  In  the  words  of 
the  venerable  Hooker,  I  would  say,  without  the  slightest 
reservation,  "  Let  us  not  fear  to  be  herein  bold  and  pe- 
remptory, that  if  any  thing  in  the  Church's  government, 
surely  the  first  institution  of  bishops  teas  from  heaven,  was  even 
from  God;  the  Holy  Ghost  was  the  author  of  it.'"*  But  il 
does  not  necessarily  follow  from  this,  that  the  loss  of  epis- 
copacy destroys  the  very  being  of  the  Church.  It  destroys 
its  apostolic  order,  undoubtedly;  but  as  I  have  already 
shown,  in  the  question  of  the  sacraments,  that  their  essence 
may  be  had,  when  their  order  is  wanting,  so  is  it  in  the 
question  of  the  Church.  Hence  I  am  compelled  to  admit, 
that  although  the  episcopal  government  be,  indeed,  of  di- 
vine institution,  and  although  the  want  of  this  be  the  want 
of  the  order  appointed  by  the  authority  of  Christ,  yet  the 
Church,  in  its  essential  elements,  may  subsist  notwithstand- 
ing. The  completeness  or  perfection  of  the  Church  requires 
both  the  apostolic  doctrine  and  the  apostolic  government. 
The  faith  of  the  Church,  and  the  ministry  of  the  Church 
should,  doubtless,  go  together.  The  first  is  the  jewel,  the 
second  is  the  casket:  "  We  have  this  treasure,"  saith  St. 
Paul,  "fn  earthen  vessels."  But  the  loss  of  the  one  does 
not  necessarily  involve  the  loss  of  the  other;  even  as  the 
destruction  of  the  body  does  not  necessarily  involve  the 
destruction  of  the  soul. 

Let  me  proceed,  however,  to  the  proof  proposed,  that 
while  our  mother  Church  provided  for  the  strictest  adhe- 
rence to  apostolic  order  in  her  own  case,  she  yet  granted 
both  the  name  and  character  of  Churches,  to  the  various 
Christian  sects  which  sprang  up  in  the  difficulties  and  strug- 
gles of  the  Reformation. 

I  shall  commence  with  the  well  known  work  of  Bishop 
Burnet,  on  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  because  he  wrote  at  a 
period  when  the  first  feeling  of  fellowship  with  the  Calvin- 
*  Ecc.  Pol.  B.  7,  §  5,  London  Ed.  of  1825.  Vol.  2,  p.  275. 


istic,  Helvetian,  and  Lutheran  Churches  of  the  continent, 
had  long  died  away.  It  has,  indeed,  been  said,  that  he  was 
liable  to  other  influences,  both  national  and  political;  be- 
cause he  was  a  Scotchman,  and  a  supporter  of  King  Wil- 
liam III.,  which  circumstances  would  concur  in  drawing 
him  towards  the  same  system  of  Presbyterianism,  from  the 
double  motives  of  birth  and  interest  In  truth,  however? 
1  cannot  see  the  fairness  of  arguments  like  these,  not  only 
because  they  assume,  what  we  do  not  possess, — the  power 
of  reading  the  heart;  but  because  they  cannot  be  urged 
w^ithout  positively  sinning  against  the  precept;  "Judge  not, 
that  ye  be  not  judged;  for  wilh  what  judgment  ye  judge,  ye 
shall  be  judged;  and  wilh  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be 
measured  to  you  again.''  Besides  which,  there  is  a  peculiar 
ground  of  confidence  in  the  book  of  Bishop  Burnet,  derived 
from  the  fact  staled  in  the  preface,  that  he  was  induced  to 
undertake  it  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  that  it  was 
read  with  great  care  by  many  of  the  other  bishops  and  se- 
veral learned  divines,  and  that  it  was  published  with  the 
strongest  expressions  of  their  approbation. 

Speaking  of  the  23d  Article,  on  the  very  point  of  a  law- 
ful calling  of  the  ministry,  this  author  saith  as  follows:*^ 
"I  come  in  the  next  place  to  consider  the  second  part  of 
this  Article,  which  is  the  definition  here  given  of  those 
that  are  lawfully  called  and  sent;  this  is  put  in  very  gene- 
ral words,  far  from  that  magisterial  stiffness  in  which  some 
have  taken  upon  them  to  dictate  in  this  matter.  The  Ar- 
ticle does  not  resolve  this  into  any  particular  constitution, 
bat  leaves  the  matter  open  and  at  large  for  such  accidents 
as  had  happened,  and  such  as  might  still  happen.  They 
who  drew  it  had  the  state  of  the  several  Churches  before 
their  eyes  that  had  been  differently  reformed;  and  although 
their  own  had  been  less  forced  to  go  out  of  the  beaten  track 
than  any  other,  yet  they  knew  that  all  things  among  them- 

*  liurnet  on  the  39lh  Article,  London  Ed.  of  1827,  p.  857. 
2* 


1^ 

selves  had  not  gone  according  to  those  rules  that  ought  to 
be  sacred  in  regular  times:  necessity  has  no  law,  and  is  a 
law  unto  itself." 

We  need  be  at  no  loss  to  understand  these  last  expres- 
sions of  Bishop  Burnet,  when  we  remember  the  dependence 
of  the  Church  of  England  upon  the  State,  as  well  in  the 
mode  of  electing  their  bishops,  as  in  the  secular  influence 
of  their  immense  Lay-patronage,  and  the  miserable  subjec- 
tion of  the  Ecclesiastical  Convocation,  which  ma}^  not  even 
speak  the  sentiments  of  the  Church  without  the  royal  license. 
These  and  similar  evils,  however,  belong  not  to  the  Church 
herself,  because  her  Articles,  Homilies  and  Canons  do  no 
where  justify  them.  They  are  rather  the  bondage  arising 
from  her  peculiar  political  connexion,  which  she  endures 
rather  than  approves,  and  for  which  she  does  not  hold  her- 
self accountable. 

But  to  proceed  with  the  exposition  of  our  author:  "  If 
a  company  of  Christians,"  continues  he,  "  find  the  public 
worship  where  they  live  to  be  so  defiled,  that  they  cannot 
with  a  good  conscience  join  in  it,  and  if  they  do  not  know 
of  an}'  place  to  which  they  can  conscientiously  go,  where 
they  may  worship  God  purely,  and  in  a  regular  way;  if, 
I  say,  such  a  body,  finding  some  that  have  been  ordained, 
though  to  the  lower  functions,  should  submit  itself  entirely 
to  their  conduct,  or  finding  none  of  these,  should,  by  a 
common  consent,  desire  some  of  their  own  number  to 
minister  to  them  in  holy  things,  and  should  upon  that 
beginning  grow  up  to  a  regulated  constitution,  though  we 
are  very  sure  that  this  is  quite  out  of  all  rule,  and  could 
not  be  done  without  a  very  great  sin  unless  the  necessity 
were  great  and  apparent,  yet  if  the  necessity  is  real  and 
not  feigned,  this  is  not  condemned  nor  annulled  by  the 
Article;  for  when  this  grows  to  a  constitution,  and  when  it 
was  begun  by  the  consent  of  a  body,  who  are  supposed  to 
have  authority  in  such  an  extraordinary  case,  whatever 


11 

some  hotter  spirits  have  thought  of  this  since  that  time, 
yet  we  are  very  sure,  that  not  only  those  who  penned  the 
Articles,  but  the  body  of  this  Church  for  about  half  an  age 
after,  did,  notwithstanding  those  irregularities,  acknow- 
ledge the  foreign  Churches  so  constituted,  to  be  true 
Churches  as  to  all  the  essentials  of  a  Church,  though  they 
had  been  at  first  irregularly  formed,  and  continued  still  to 
be  in  an  imperfect  state.  And  therefore  the  general  words 
in  which  this  part  of  the  Article  is  framed,  seem  to  have 
been  designed  on  purpose  not  to  exclude  them." 

Now  here,  Bishop  Burnet  asserts  not  only  his  own 
judgment,  nor  only  that  of  the  Church  of  England  in  his 
day,  but  further  undertakes  to  deliver  the  judgment  of  the 
body  of  the  Church  for  half  a  century  after  the  era  of  the 
Reformation.  If,  in  this,  he  was  in  error,  it  would  be  the 
easiest  of  all  things  to  show  it.  But  the  farther  we  ex- 
amine into  the  sentiments  and  conduct  of  the  Church  at 
that  period,  the  more  we  shall  be  obliged  to  acknowledge 
that  he  represented  them  fairl3\  As  the  most  unimpeach- 
able witness  on  this  point,  I  shall  next  turn  to  Hooker, 
whose  position  in  the  Church  during  the  reign  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  concurred  with  his  acknowledged  learning  and 
profound  judgment  to  give  him  every  qualification  for 
the  decision  of  such  a  question.  First,  therefore,  let  us 
attend  to  his  definition  of  the  word  Church,  in  general, 
and  afterwards  to  his  opinion  on  the  precise  point  of  our 
inquiry. 

"  Church,"  saith  this  admirable  author,*  "  is  a  word  which 
art  hath  devised,  thereby  to  sever  and  distinguish  that  so- 
ciety of  men  which  professeth  the  true  religion,  from  the 
rest  which  profess  it  not.  There  have  been  in  the  world, 
from  the  very  first  foundation  thereof,  but  three  religions. 
Paganism,  which  lived  in  the  blindness  of  corrupt  and  de- 
praved nature;  Judaism,  embracing  the  law  which  reformed 

*  Ecc.  Pol.  B.  5,  §  08,  vol.  2d  of  Lond.  Ed.  of  1825,  p.  17. 


12^ 

heathenish  impieties,  and  taught  salvation  to  be  looked  for 
through  One  whom  God  in  the  last  days  would  send  and 
exalt  to  be  Lord  of  all;  finally,  Christian  belief,  which 
yieldeth  obedience  to  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  ac- 
knowledgeth  him  the  Saviour  whom  God  did  promise. 
Seeing  then  that  the  Church  is  a  name,  which  art  hath  given 
to  professors  of  true  religion;  as  they  that  will  define  a 
man  are  to  pass  by  those  qualities  wherein  one  man  doth 
excel  another,  and  to  take  only  those  essential  properties, 
whereby  man  doth  differ  from  creatures  of  other  kinds,  so 
he  that  will  teach  what  the  Church  is,  shall  never  rightly 
perform  the  work  whereabout  he  goeth,  till  in  matter  of 
religion  he  touch  that  difference  which  severeththe  Church's 
religion  from  theirs  who  are  not  the  Church.  Religion 
being  therefore  a  matter  partly  of  contemplation,  partly  of 
action,  we  must  define  the  Church,  which  is  a  religious  so- 
ciety, by  such  differences  as  do  perfectly  explain  the  essence 
of  such  things;  that  is  to  say,  by  the  object  or  matter 
whereabout  the  contemplation  and  actions  of  the  Church  are 
properly  conversant;  for  so  all  knowledge  and  all  virtues 
are  defined.  Wherefore,  because  the  only  object  which 
separateth  ours  from  other  religions,  is  Jesus  Christ,  in 
whom  none  but  the  Church  doth  believe,  and  whom  none 
but  the  Church  doth  worship;  we  find  that  accordingly  the 
apostles  do  every  where  distinguish  hereby  the  Church  from 
infidels  and  Jews,  accounting  them  which  call  upon  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  be  his  Church.  If  we  go 
lower,  we  shall  but  add  unto  this  certain  casual  and  variable 
accidents,  which  are  not  properly  of  the  being,  but  make 
only  for  the  happier  and  belter  being  of  the  Church  of  God, 
either  in  deed,  or  in  men's  opinions  and  conceits.  This  is 
the  error  of  all  popish  definitions  that  hitherto  have  been 
brought.  They  define  not  the  Church  by  that  which  the 
Church  essentially  is,  but  by  that  wherein  they  imagine  their 
own  more  perfect  than  the  rest  are.'' 


13 

Again,  (ib.  p.  19,)  "That  which  separateth  therefore  ut- 
terly," continues  Hooker,  "that  which  cutteth  off  clean  from 
the  visible  Church  of  Christ,  is  plain  apostacy,  direct  denial, 
utter  rejection  of  the  luhole  Christian  faith,  as  far  as  the  same 
is  professedly  different  from  infidelity.  Heretics,  as  touch- 
ing those  points  of  doctrine  wherein  they  fail;  Schismatics, 
as  touching  the  quarrels  for  which,  or  the  duties  wherein 
they  divide  themselves  from  their  brethren;  loose,  licentious 
and  wicked  persons,  as  touching  their  several  offences  or 
crimes,  have  all  forsaken  the  true  Church  of  God:  the  Church 
which  is  sound  and  sincere  in  the  doctrine  which  they  cor- 
rupt; the  Church  that  keepeth  the  bond  of  unity  which 
they  violate;  the  Church  that  walketh  in  the  laws  of  righ- 
teousness which  they  transgress;  this  very  true  Church  of 
Christ  they  have  left,  howbeit  not  altogether  left,  nor  forsaken 
simply  the  Church;  upon  the  main  foundation  whereof  they 
continue  built,  notwithstanding  those  breaches  ichereby  they  are 
rent  at  the  top  asunder." 

And  to  show  his  meaning  yet  more  clearly,  this  eminent 
writer  saith  again,  (ib.  B.  3,  Sec.  1,  vol.  i.  p.  276,)  "We 
must  acknowledge  even  heretics  themselves  to  be,  though  a 
maimed  part,  yet  a  part  of  the  visible  Church." — "Heretics 
are  not  utterly  cut  off  from  the  visible  Church  of  Christ.  If 
the  Fathers  do  any  where,  as  oftentimes  they  do,  make  the 
true  visible  Church  of  Christ  and  heretical  companies  op- 
posite; they  are  to  be  construed  as  separating  heretics,  not 
altogether  from  the  company  of  believers,  but  from  the  fel- 
lowship of  sound  believers.  For  where  professed  unbelief 
is,  there  can  be  no  visible  Church  of  Christ:  there  may  be, 
where  sound  belief  wanteth.  Infidels  being  clean  without 
the  Church,  deny  directly,  and  utterly  reject,  the  very  prin- 
ciples of  Christianity,  which  heretics  embrace,  and  err  only 
by  misconstruction." 

Now  these  principles,  it  must  be  confessed,  are  large  and 
comprehensive.     And  yet  I  suspect  that  those  who  most 


14 

dislike  them  in  one  respect,  may  be  most  dependent  upon 
them  in  another,  for  certain  it  seems,  that  nothing  short  of 
this  will  justify  the  opposite  modes  in  which  our  Oxford 
friends  speak  in  their  celebrated  Tracts  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  Thus,  in  one  place  they  very  truly  say,  "the  Ro- 
man Church  is  infected  with  heresy,  we  are  bound  to  flee 
it  as  a  pestilence."  While  in  other  parts  of  their  work 
they  call  her  "Our  elder  sister,"  and  speak  with  great 
feeling  of  our  supposed  obligations  to  her.  On  Hooker's 
hypothesis,  however,  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  main- 
taining that  the  Church  of  Rome  has  become  heretical,  schis- 
matical,  and  awfully  corrupt,  while,  nevertheless,  so  long 
as  she  professes  the  fundamental  principlesof  Christian  faith, 
she  must  be  granted  a  place  in  the  comprehensive  circle 
of  the  Church  universal.  But  it  will  not  be  just  to  claim 
the  benefit  of  his  theory  when  it  operates  in  favour  of 
Rome,  and  yet  reject  it  as  soon  as  it  is  applied  to  Presby- 
terianism. 

Let  me  once  more  recur  to  this  venerated  author,  there- 
fore, and  hear  his  judgment  in  reference  to  those  Churches 
which  had  lost  episcopacy:  (ib.  B.  7,  §  14,  2  Vol.  p.  304.) 
"There  may  be  sometimes  very  just  and  sufficient  reasons," 
saith  he,  "  to  allow  ordination  made  without  a  bishop." 
"  Men  may  be  extraordinarily,  yet  allowably,  two  ways 
admitted  unto  spiritual  functions  in  the  Church.  One  is, 
when  God  himself  doth  of  himself  raise  up  any,  whose  la- 
bour he  useth  without  requiring  that  men  should  authorize 
them;  but  then  he  doth  ratify  their  calling  by  manifest 
signs  and  tokens  himself  from  heaven.  Another  extraor- 
dinary kind  of  vocation  is,  when  the  exigence  of  necessity 
doth  constrain  to  leave  the  usual  ways  of  the  Church,  which 
otherwise  we  would  willingly  keep:  where  the  Church 
must  needs  have  some  ordained,  and  neither  hath,  nor  can 
have  possibly,  a  bishop  to  ordain;  in  case  of  such  necessity? 
the  ordinary  institution  of  God  hath  oftentimes  and  may 


ti 

give  place.  And  therefore,  we  are  not,  simply  without 
exception,  to  urge  a  lineal  descent  of  power  from  the  apos- 
tles, hy  continued  succession  of  bishops  in  every  eflfectual 
ordination.  These  cases  of  inevilable  necessity  excepted,  none 
may  ordain  but  only  bishops." 

These  principles.  Hooker  himself  applies  to  the  very 
case  of  the  presbyterian  Churches,  in  the  following  pas- 
sage: (ib.  B.  3,  §  2,  Vol,  1,  p.  330.)  "In  which  respect," 
saith  he,  "for  mine  own  part,  although  I  see  that  certain 
reformed  Churches,  the  Scottish  especially  and  French, 
have  not  that  which  best  agreeth  with  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures, I  mean  the  government  that  is  by  bishops;  inasmuch 
as  both  these  Churches  are  fallen  under  a  different  kind  of 
regimen;  which  to  remedy,  it  is  for  the  one  altogether  too 
late,  and  too  soon  for  the  other  during  their  present  af- 
fliction and  trouble:  yet  this  their  defect  and  imperfection 
I  had  rather  lament  in  such  a  case  than  exaggerate:  con- 
sidering that  men  oftentimes,  without  any  fault  of  their 
own,  may  be  driven  to  want  that  kind  of  polity  or  regimen 
which  is  best:  and  to  content  themselves  with  that  which 
either  th.e  iiremediable  error  of  former  times,  or  the  ne- 
cessity of  the  present  hath  cast  upon  them." 

Here,  then,  I  behold  the  opinion  which  fairly  presents 
the  views  of  our  mother  Church  on  the  true  character  of 
those  reformed  Churches  which  had  unhappily  been  obliged, 
as  they  honestly  supposed,  to  dispense  with  the  apostolic 
order  of  episcopacy.  It  was  a  defect,  a  defect  to  be  sorely 
lamented,  but  yet  it  did  not  destroy  them  as  Churches.  The 
title  of  Churches  vvas  plainly  and  constantly  applied  to  them 
not  only  by  Hooker,  but  by  all  the  English  episcopalians 
of  that  and  long  subsequent  times.  And  although  the  com- 
prehensive definition  of  the  essential  elements  of  the  Church, 
allowed  Hooker  to  embrace  the  Church  of  Rome  along 
with  the  reformed  Churches  of  France  and  Scotland,  within 
the  great  circle  of  the  Church  universal,  yet  there  can  be 


16 

no  question  in  any  unprejudiced  mind  as  to  the  sentiment 
entertained  concerning  their  comparative  affinity  to  the 
primitive  Apostolic  system.  Even  our  brethren  of  Oxford, 
in  one  place,  speak  of  Rome  in  the  nineteenth  century,  as 
of  "  a  demoniac,  beside  herself,  ruled  within  by  an  inexorable 
spirit."  How  much  more  must  she  have  been  so  esteemed 
in  the  days  of  Hooker,  in  the  days  of  Elizabeth,  when  men 
were  but  just  relieved  from  her  darkest  empire  of  super- 
stition and  cruelty?  And  hence,  is  it  not  manifest,  that  the 
Church  of  England,  at  that  period,  could  not  have  faltered 
for  an  instant  in  their  judgment  between  Rome  and 
Geneva?  That  if,  in  the  latter  case,  they  might  have  been 
obliged  to  regard  their  reformed  sister,  as  one  who  had, 
indeed,  with  respect  to  episcopacy,  lost  the  right  hand  of 
her  strength,  yet  was  she,  in  every  thing  else,  of  sound 
mind  and  fair  proportions,  while  Rome,  though  possessing 
every  member  of  the  body,  was  covered  with  excrescencies 
and  corruption  from  head  to  foot,  and  was,  moreover,  "  be- 
side herself" — a  maniac,  though,  happily,  in  chains. 

Let  me  next  state  the  judgment  of  our  mother  Church 
upon  this  point,  as  it  appeared  in  the  following  century, 
under  the  first  Charles  and  his  successor.  Mede,  Chilling- 
wo"rth.  Usher,  and  Bramhall,  will  furnish  sufficient  proof 
in  favour  of  the  same  allowance  of  the  name  Church,  to 
our  non-episcopal  brethren. 

Commencing  with  Chillingworth,  (see  his  Works,  London 
edition  of  1S20,  volume  2,  p.  253,)  I  find  him  thus  sum- 
ming up,  in  his  celebrated  answer  to  his  Jesuitical  antago- 
nist, the  differences  between  the  various  branches  of  the 
Reformation.  "Some,"  saith  our  author,  "  taking  their  di- 
rection only  from  the  Scriptures,  others  from  the  writings 
of  the  fathers  and  the  decrees  of  councils  of  the  first  five 
ages,  certainly  it  is  no  great  marvel  that  there  was,  as  you 
say,  disagreement  between  them,  in  the  particulars  of  their 
reformation;  nay,  morally  speaking,  it  was  impossible  it 


17 

should  be  otherwise.  Yet  let  me  tell  you,  the  difference 
between  them,  (especially  in  comparison  of  your  Church 
and  religion,)  is  not  the  difference  between  good  and  bad; 
but  between  good  and  better;  and  they  did  best  that  fol- 
lowed the  Scripture,  interpreted  by  catholic  written  tradi- 
tion; which  rule  the  reformers  of  the  Church  of  England 
proposed  to  themselves  to  folIow\" 

The  prevailing  sentiment  of  his  day  may  be  gathered 
from  this  distinguished  writer  on  another  point,  which  be- 
longs to  this  subject;  for  there  are  many  amongst  ourselves 
who  do  not  see  any  difference  between  the  sin  of  origi- 
nating a  schism,  and  that  of  maintaining  it,  after  time  and 
long  consent  have  given  it  a  species  of  sacred  prescription 
in  the  feelings  and  prejudices  of  a  multitude,  who  could 
not,  by  any  possibility,  be  turned  away  from  it,  without 
putting  many  schisms  in  the  place  of  one.  "  You  say," 
saith  Chillingworth,  (ib.  p.  189,)  "that  supposing  Luther 
and  they  which  did  first  separate  from  the  Roman  Church, 
were  guilty  of  schism,  it  is  certainly  consequent  that  all 
who  persist  in  this  division  must  be  so  likewise;  which  is 
not  so  certain  as  you  pretend.  For  they  which  alter,  with- 
out necessary  cause,  the  present  government  of  any  State, 
civil  or  ecclesiastical,  do  commit  a  great  fault;  whereof,  not- 
withstanding, they  may  be  innocent,  who  continue  this  alte- 
ration, and  to  the  utmost  of  their  power,  oppose  a  change 
though  to  the  former  state,  when  continuance  of  time  hath 
settled  the  present.*'  This  is,  indeed,  the  very  same  apology 
which  the  learned  Le  Clerc,  an  ardent  lover  of  Episcopacy, 
although  professedly  a  Presbyterian,  assigned  at  a  later 
day,  for  not  encouraging  a  change.  "The  Presbyterian 
form,"  saith  he,  "is  settled  in  most  places,  which  being 
once  done,  it  was  a  matter  of  so  much  interest  to  those  who 
presided  over  the  civil  government,  (sc.  of  Holland,)  and 
is  still  of  so  much  consequence  to  the  public  peace  to  avoid 
all  causes  of  disturbance,  that  at  this  day  it  must  of  neces- 
3 


18 

sity  be  suffered  to  remain,'' — "  Therefore  prudent  men, 
although  they  ardently  long  for  that  form  of  Church  admi- 
nistration which  was  apostolic,  or  like  it,  yet  they  think 
it  best  now  to  leave  matters  as  they  are."*  The  difference 
in  judgment,  motive,  principle  and  feeling,  between  men 
who  talk  thus,  and  the  originators  of  a  needless  schism,  is 
too  plain  to  requh'e  either  argument  or  illustration. 

With  some  of  my  esteemed  Oxford  brethren,  however, 
I  am  aware  that  Chillingworth  is  no  favourite.  My  other 
citations  will  please  them  better,  I  trust,  inasmuch  as  they 
are  taken  from  the  Oxford  Tracts,  and  therefore  ought  to  be 
invested,  in  strict  consistency,  with  the  sanction  of  their 
own  commendation. 

I  proceed,  therefore,  to  observe,  that  the  famous  Mede, 
(Oxford  Tracts,  3d  vol.  of  Am.  Ed.  p.  440)  had  no  scruples 
about  granting  to  the  non-episcopal  branches  of  the  Reforma- 
tion the  title  of  Churches.  "  Our  Church,"  saith  he,  "  goes 
upon  differing  principles  from  the  rest  of  the  reformed,  and 
so  steers  her  course  by  another  rule  than  they  do.  We 
look  after  the  form,  rites,  and  discipline  of  antiquity,  and 
endeavour  to  bring  our  own  as  near  as  we  can  to  that  pat- 
tern. We  suppose  the  Reformed  Churches  have  departed 
farther  therefrom  than  is  needed,  and  so  we  are  not  very 
solicitous  to  comply  with  them;  yea,  we  are  jealous  of  such 
of  our  own  as  we  see  over-zealously  addicted  to  them,  lest 
it  be  a  sign  they  prefer  them  before  their  mother."  Now 
here  is  a  man,  distinguished  for  his  learning  and  his  zeal 
for  primitive  Catholicism,  who  yet,  in  all  the  freedom  of  a 
private  letter  to  a  friend,  calls  these  non-episcopal  commu- 
nions Reformed  Churches,  as  if  he  considered  it  a  matter 
of  course  that  they  were  entitled  to  that  character. 

My  next  citation  bears  the  honoured  name  of  Archbi- 
shop  Usher,    (ib.  p.  443-4.)  « If  at  this  day,"  saith  this 

*  See  the  author's  volume  on  the  Primitive  Church,  9th  Lecture,  p. 
263  of  2d  Ed.  where  the  original  is  quoted. 


19 

eminent  scholar  and  divine,  "  we  should  take  a  survey  of 
the  several  professions  of  Christianity  that  have  any  large 
spread  in  any  part  of  the  world,  as  of  the  religion  of  the 
Roman  and  the  Reformed  Churches  in  our  quarters,  of  the 
Egyptians  and  the  Ethiopians  in  the  south,  of  the  Grecians 
and  other  Christians  in  the  eastern  parts,  and  should  put 
by  the  points  wherein  they  did  differ  one  from  another, 
and  gather  into  one  body  the  rest  of  the  articles  wherein 
they  did  all  generally  agree,  we  should  find,  that  in  those 
propositions  which  without  controversy  are  universally 
received  in  the  whole  Christian  world,  so  much  truth  is 
contained,  as,  being  joined  with  holy  obedience,  may  be 
sufficient  to  bring  a  man  unto  everlasting  salvation.  Nei- 
ther have  we  cause  to  doubt,  but  that  as  many  as  do  walk 
according  to  this  rule,  (neither  overthrowing  that  which 
they  have  builded  by  superinducing  any  damnable  heresies 
thereupon,  nor  otherwise  vitiating  their  holy  faith  with  a 
lewd  and  wicked  conversation,)  peace  shall  be  upon  them, 
and  mercy,  and  upon  the  Israel  of  God." 

This  noble  paragraph,  conceived  in  the  true  spirit  of  an 
enlightened  judgment  and  an  enlarged  heart,  is  worthy 
of  being  transcribed  in  letters  of  gold,  and  hung  up  as  a 
constant  memorial  in  the  study  of  every  controversialist. 
The  special  point  for  which  I  have  cited  it,  appears  in  the 
commencement,  wherethis  profoundly  learned  authorspeaks 
of  the  "  Roman  and  Reformed  Churches  in  our  quarters." 
The  inference  from  such  language  as  this  is  obvious  to  the 
slightest  reflection. 

Let  me  now  turn  to  Bramhall,  another  archbishop  of 
Armagh,  who  occupied  the  see  immediately  after  the  re- 
storation, A.  D.  1660,  not  long  after  the  decease  of  his 
illustrious  predecessor.  I  shall  not  dispute  with  my  trac- 
tarian  brethren,  the  propriety  of  calling  him  a  Confessor, 
nor  the  justice  of  applying  the  name  o(  Martyr  to  Arch- 
bishop Laud,  although  I  certainly  think  that  their  claims 


so 

to  these  distinctions  are  more  than  doubtful.  But  be  this 
as  it  may,  the  inexpediency  of  such  epithets,  when  their 
inflammatory  influence  upon  the  Church  of  our  own  day 
might  have  been  so  easily  anticipated,  should  have  led  to 
the  omission  of  titles,  which  were  likely  to  injure  the 
living,  without  profiting  the  dead.  It  is  indeed  true,  that 
Bramhall  was  impeached  in  1640,  by  the  Irish  House  of 
Commons,  when  bishop  of  Londonderry,  as  one  of  the 
coadjutors  of  the  unfortunate  Earl  of  Strafibrd.  It  is  true 
that  he  was  imprisoned,  and  after  he  obtained  his  liberty 
through  the  royal  influence,  he  became  a  voluntary  exile. 
But  the  difficulty  in  such  cases  is  to  separate  the  religious 
from  the  political  antipathy,  which  armed  the  hand  of  per- 
secution, so  as  to  demonstrate,  that  if  the  individual  had 
confined  himself  strictly  within  the  limits  of  a  Christian 
Bishop,  instead  of  making  himself  actively  obnoxious  as'a 
political  adviser,  the  same  measure  of  odium  and  of  sufier- 
ing  would  have  been  meted  out  to  him.  For  in  order  to 
entitle  a  man  to  those  venerable  distinctions  of  Confessor 
and  Martyr  in  the  Church  of  God,  it  is  incontrovertible 
that  he  must  have  suffered  purely  on  account  of  his  Chris- 
tian fidelity. 

But  this  by  the  way:  his  testimony  is  none  the  less  con- 
clusive on  the  point  before  us,  if  it  be  not  rather  the  more 
so.  These  are  his  words,  as  cited  by  our  Oxford  brethren, 
(Tracts,  vol.  3,  p.  140.)  "  Episcopal  divines  do  not  deny 
those  Churches  to  be  true  CiiAirches,  wherein  salvation  may 
be  had."  We  advise  them,  as  it  is  our  duty,  to  be  circum- 
spect for  themselves,  and  not  to  put  it  to  more  question 
whether  they  have  ordination  or  not,  or  desert  the  general 
practice  of  the  universal  Church  for  nothing,  when  Ihey 
may  clear  it  if  they  please.  Their  case  is  not  the  same 
with  those  who  labour  under  invincible  necessity." — "Epis- 
copal divines  will  readily  subscribe  to  the  determination 
of  the  learned  Bishop  of  Winchester,"  (sc.  the  eminent 


21 

Bishop  Andrews,)  "in  his  answer  to  the  second  epistle  of 
Molineus.  '  Nevertheless,  if  our  form  (of  Episcopacy,) 
be  of  divine  right,  it  doth  not  follow  from  thence,  that 
there  is  not  salvation  without  it,  or  that  a  Church  cannot 
consist  without  it.  He  is  blind  who  does  not  see  Churches 
consisting  without  it:  he  is  hard-hearted  who  denieth 
them  salvation.  We  are  none  of  those  hard-hearted  per- 
sons, we  put  a  great  difference  between  these  things. 
There  may  be  something  absent  in  the  exterior  regiment 
which  is  of  divine  right,  and  yet  salvation  to  be  had.' 
"  This  mistake,"  continues  Bramhall,  "  proceedeth  from 
not  distinguishing  between  the  true  nature  and  essence  of  a 
Cliurch,  WHICH  WE  DO  READILY  GRANT  THEM,  and  the  in- 
tegrity or  perfection  of  a  Church  which  we  cannot  grant 
THEM,  without  swerving  from  the  judgment  of  the  catholic 
Church."  To  this  let  me  add  a  short  extract  from  Scott, 
a  learned  cotemporary  of  Bishop  Burnet,*  who  expressly 
asserts  the  same  principle,  (ib.  p.  152,)  that  although  this 
instituted  government  of  episcopacy  "  is  necessary  to  the 
perfection  of  a  Church,  yet  it  doth  not  follow  that  it  is  there' 
fore  necessary  to  the  being  of  it.'' 

Now  here,  the  testimony  of  the  Church  of  England  is 
brought  down  to  the  time  of  William  III. — to  the  time  of 
Bishop  Burnet;  and  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  his  state- 
ment,  with  which  I  commenced  my  proofs,  is  completely 
sustained  by  all  that  went  before  him,  our  Oxford  brethren 
themselves  being  judges.  It  is  perfectly  idle,  therefore, 
to  make  light  of  his  evidence,  by  talking  of  his  prejudices 
on  account  of  birth  and  education,  or  hi*s  political  interest 
in  the  service  of  the  house  of  Orange.  Christian  writers 
should  blush  to  use  such  arguments  in  disparagement  of 
any  theological  author,  unless  they  are  prepared  to  prove 
him  guilty  of  fraud  or  falsehood.     For  what  is  it  but  an 

*  Bishop  Burnet  was  born  in  1643,  and  Scott  in  1G33,  there  was 
therefore  only  five  years  between  them, 

3* 


22 

open  proclaiming  to  the  world  that  clergymen  themselves 
have  no  confidence  in  the  honesty  and  candour  of  each 
other,  but  are  ready  to  slander  the  motives  and  principles 
of  the  most  eminent  divines,  even  of  their  own  Church, 
when  they  can  find  no  other  way  to  gain  a  polemic  victory? 
If,  however,  it  be  still  doubted,  whether  the  Church  of 
England,  as  a  Church,  would  have  assented  to  this  doctrine, 
I  have  no  difficulty  in  pointing  to  her  ecclesiastical  action 
in  the  most  direct  form.  For  to  say  nothing  of  the  fact, 
that  some  of  her  most  distinguished  divines  acted  as  dele- 
gates in  the  famous  Presbyterian  Synod  of  Dort;  nor  of  the 
fact  that  she  assented,  without  difficulty,  to  the  terms  of  the 
union  by  which  the  Presbyterian  Church  became  the  esta- 
blished religion  of  Scotland,  we  have  two  ecclesiastical  de- 
clarations upon  the  point,  which  are  beyond  all  fair  excep- 
tion. The  first  to  which  I  refer  is  the  language  of  the  ad- 
dress on  the  accession  of  William  III.,  in  which  both  the 
Houses  of  Convocation  agreed  in  thanking  the  king  for  his 
zeal  in  behalf  of  the  Church  of  England,  anticipating  that 
thereby  "the  interest  of  the  Protestant  religion  in  all  other 
Protestant  Churches  would  be  better  secured.''  (Oxford 
Tracts,  vol.  ili.  p.  37.)  The  other  declaration  is  found  in 
the  55th  canon  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  which  the 
clergy  are  required  to  "pray  for  the  Churches  of  England, 
Scotland  and  Ireland,  as  parts  of  Christ's  Holy  Catholic 
Church,  which  is  dispersed  throughout  the  world."*  In 
all  the  forms,  therefore,  in  which  our  mother  Church  could 
assert  her  doctrine,  she  has  constantly  maintained  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  Order  of  the  Apostolic  ministry  which  she 
was  careful  to  preserve  for  herself,  as  a  high  and  sacred  pri- 
vilege, was  yet  not  held  essential  to  the  being  of  a  Church, 
and  that  the  Reformed  Christian  communions  which  had  it 

*  See  this  fact  treated  by  Bowden,  in  his  15th  Letter  to  Miller,  Stan- 
dard Works,  vol.  i.  p.  211. 


23 

not,  were,  notwithstanding,  true  Churches,  although  imper- 
fect. The  same  judgment,  as  we  all  know,  has  been  main- 
tained in  England  to  our  own  day,  nor  am  I  aware  that  it 
has  been  openly  impugned  by  any  bishop  on  that  side  of 
the  ocean. 

It  remains  that  I  should  say  a  few  words  on  the  ques- 
tion, whether  our  own  branch  of  the  Church  has  been  less 
liberal  in  her  doctrine.  And  but  few  can  be  required  to 
settle  this  point  in  the  discussion,  since,  in  the  very  preface 
to  our  book  of  Common  Prayer,  we  read  as  follows: 

"When,  in  the  course  of  Divine  Providence,  these  Ame- 
rican States  became  independent  with  respect  to  civil  go- 
vernment, their  ecclesiastical  independence  was  necessarily 
included ;  and  the  different  religious  denominations  of  Chris- 
tians in  these  States  were  left  at  full  and  equal  liberty  to 
model  and  organize  their  respective  Churches  and  forms  of 
worship,  and  discipline,  in  such  manner  as  they  might  judge 
most  convenient  for  their  future  prosperity;  consistently 
with  the  constitution  and  laws  of  their  country."  And  in 
the  last  paragraph  but  one,  it  is  further  stated  that  "this 
Church  is  far  from  intending  to  depart  from  the  Church  of 
England  in  any  essential  point  of  doctrine,  discipline,  or 
worship;  or  farther  than  local  circumstances  require." 

Now  this  document,  being  the  voice  of  the  American 
Episcopal  Church  in  general  convention,  and  that,  too,  ut- 
tered at  the  very  time  when  we  were  to  consummate  our 
separate  stand  as  an  independent  Church,  must  be  considered 
decisive  upon  the  subject,  at  least  until  an  equally  authori- 
tative expression  shall  have  done  it  away.  For  here,  in  our 
collective  capacity,  and  in  connexion  with  our  standard 
book,  we  have  given  the  name  of  Churches  to  the  different 
religious  denominations  in  the  United  States  as  then  exist- 
ing, and  have  declared  our  agreement  with  the  Church  of 
England  in  all  essential  points  of  doctrine,  &c.  Tiie  evi- 
dences which  might  be  collected  from  the  language  of  our 


24 

bishops  and  clergy,  since  that  important  era  in  our  history, 
would  fill  a  volume.  I  would  only  refer  to  the  well  known 
work  of  Bowden's  Letters  to  Miller,  in  which  he  admits, 
repeatedly,  that  the  doctrine  which  I  have  stated  is  the  re- 
ceived doctrine.  Thus,  for  example,  (p.  235  of  Standard 
Works,)  he  saith,  "No  doubt  he  (Archbishop  Whitgift) 
maintained,  even  with  respect  to  episcopacy,  what  every 
episcopal  writer  that  I  have  ever  met  icith  maintains,  that  this 
government  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  the  very  salvation 
of  the  Church,  but  that  it  is  so  necessary,  that  the  Church 
cannot  be  in  a  sound  and  perfect  state  without  it." 

Having  thus  shown,  beloved  brethren,  what  I  cannot 
otherwise  regard  than  as  the  settled  doctrine  of  our  mother 
Church  and  of  our  own  in  relation  to  this  matter,  I  proceed 
to  sustain  the  proposition  that  the  apostolic  ministry  is  not 
of  the  essence  but  of  the  order  of  the  Church,  by  a  brief  refe- 
rence to  the  Scriptures. 

That  the  word  'Church,'  which,  in  the  original  Greek, 
is  sxx'Kviaia,  signifies  the  called  assembly  or  congregation,  is 
known  to  every  scholar.  And  accordingly  it  occurs  in  this 
sense  nearly  one  hundred  times  in  the  Septuagint  version  of 
the  Old  Testament,  being  currently  applied  to  the  people 
of  Israel. 

That  the  same  word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  to 
signify  the  congregation  of  Israel  before  the  period  of  the 
Aaronic  priesthood,  is  plain  from  the  language  of  the  martyr 
Stephen,  (Actsvii.  30,)  "This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church 
in  the  wilderness,  with  the  angel  which  spake  to  him  in 
the  Mount  Sinai,  who  received  the  lively  oiacles  to  give 
unto  us.  To  whom  our  fathers  would  not  obey,  but  thrust 
him  from  them,  and  in  their  hearts  turned  back  again  into 
Egypt,  saying  unto  Aaron,  Make  us  gods  to  go  before  us; 
for  as  for  this  Moses  which  brought  us  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  we  wot  not  what  is  become  of  him."  Here  we  see 
the  term  applied  to  the  chosen  people,  anterior  to  the  in- 


25 

stitution  of  the  regular  priesthood^  distinctly  proving  that 
the  CAwrc/i  mai/ exisi  without  the  ortZer  of  the  priesthood ,  since 
it  is  spoken  of  as  existing,  before  that  order  was  established. 

We  find  the  word  used  again  by  our  great  Redeemer, 
(Mat.  xviii.  17,)  in  reference  to  the  then  existing  Jewish 
polity,  although  the  Aaronic  succession,  which  was  the  only 
lawful  priesthood,  had  long  been  lost.  "Tell  it  unto  the 
Church,"  saith  our  Lord:  "if  he  refuse  to  hear  the  Church, 
let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man,  and  a  publican." 
Here  we  see  the  term  used,  not  only  while  the  Jewish 
polity  was  yet  standing,  but  also  at  a  time  when  the  lawful 
Aaronic  succession  had  been  notoriously  set  aside;  proving 
again,  that  the  Church  in  its  essential  elements  was  regarded 
as  still  in  being,  although  the  appointed  order  of  its  priest- 
hood was  openly  destroyed. 

Again,  we  find  St.  Paul  saying,  (1  Cor.  xii,  27,  28,) 
"Now  ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  particu- 
lar. And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  Church,  first  apostles, 
secondarily  prophets;  thirdly  teachers;  after  that  miracles," 
&c.  Here  the  inspired  writer  applies  the  terms  first  and 
second,  not  to  the  point  of  time,  but  to  the  rank  of  au- 
thority; regarding  the  Church  as  already  subsisting,  and  the 
apostolic  ministry  as  set  or  placed  in  it. 

Now  the  favourite  hypothesis  of  many  in  our  day  is  quite 
opposed  to  this,  for  it  contemplates  the  Church  as  subsequent 
to  and  dependent  upon  the  ministry,  on  the  plausible  ground 
that  the  Church  is  the  body  called,  and  as  they  cannot  be 
called  without  some  agency  commissioned  to  call  them, 
and  this  agency,  according  to  the  plain  appointment  of 
Christ,  is  the  apostolic  ministry,  therefore  this  ministry  comes 
first,  and  the  Church  comes  afterwards;  and  hence  the  notion 
is  naturally  supposed  to  be  quite  demonstrated,  that  the 
apostolic  ministry  is  essential  to  the  Church,  since  there  can, 
in  the  necessary  connexion  and  dependence  of  things,  be  no 
Church  without  it.     A  little  reflection  may  be  required, 


26 

and  but  a  little,  I  trust,  to  show  the  error  of  this  argument, 
to  any  unprejudiced  and  ordinary  understanding. 

The  Church,  then,  as  the  Scriptures  present  it  to  us,  con- 
sists of  all  those  who,  lost  by  the  fall,  and  doomed  to  death 
in  the  first  Adam,  are  called  to  redemption  and  salvation 
by  the  second  Adam,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Hence  it  is 
a  mistake  to  date  its  rise  after  the  apostolic  commission, 
since,  judging  by  the  testimony  of  St.  Paul,  it  includes  the 
righteous  Abel ;  by  that  of  St.  Jude,  it  includes  the  patriarchs 
Enoch  and  Noah;  and,  by  the  express  words  of  Christ  him- 
self, we  know  that  its  final  glory  is  described  as  a  silting  down 
with  Abraham,  and  liaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Precisely  in  accordance  with  this,  is  the  aspect  in  which 
the  apostle  presents  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  They  are 
told  that  the  Church  was  already  existing, — the  good  olive 
tree;  that  some  of  the  branches  were  broken  off  in  order 
that  they  might  be  grafted  in;  and  that  they  must  not 
therefore  magnify  themselves  on  their  privileges,  since  they 
did  not  bear  the  root,  but  the  root  them. 

Bearing  this  comprehensive,  but  Scriptural  view  of  the 
term  Church  in  mind,  there  v/ill  be  no  difficulty  in  under- 
standing the  argument.  The  first  call  from  which  the 
Church  took  its  rise,  was  the  voice  of  God  himself  in  Para- 
dise, when  he  graciously  promised  that  the  Seed  of  the  wo- 
man should  bruise  the  cerpent's  head,  and  instituted,  there- 
upon, the  rite  of  sacrifice.  In  obedience  to  that  call,  Abel 
brought  his  lamb,  and  Vv^as  accepted,  because,  as  saith  the 
apostle,  he  offered  it  by  faith.  The  divine  call  descended 
from  the  patriarchs,  renewed  from  time  to  time  by  the  im- 
mediate communications  of  the  Deity,  and  proclaimed  by 
the  agency  of  prophets,  such  as  Enoch  and  Noah,  before 
the  flood,  and  Abraham  and  his  posterity  after  it.  This 
distinguished  patriarch  was  chosen  to  be  the  father  of  the 
faithful;  and  the  peculiar  privileges  of  the  Church — the 
called  and  chosen  covenant  people  of  God — were  solemnly 


27 

granted  to  him  and  to  his  seed  for  ever.  And  the  system 
of  mercy  went  on  until  the  Lord  brought  this  favoured 
Church  of  Israel,  his  peculiar  people,  out  of  Egypt,  and 
gave  them,  for  the  first  time,  the  visible  sanctuary  as  a 
pledge  of  his  presence,  and  an  instituted  order  of  priests, 
and  a  written  record  of  his  Holy  Law,  to  teach  and  direct 
them.  Soon  after  this  gracious  dispensation,  the  Almighty 
planted  them  in  Canaan,  to  be  a  glorious  witness  to  the 
whole  world,  and  to  call  all  men,  by  the  spectacle  of  their 
privileges,  and  the  communication  of  His  truth,  to  acknow- 
ledge the  God  of  Abraham. 

Presently,  however,  we  behold  the  rebellion  of  the 
Church  of  Israel  against  the  government  appointed  by 
the  Lord.  First,  in  the  days  of  Samuel,  when  they  grew 
weary  of  their  judges  and  desired  a  king.  "They  have  not 
rejected  thee,''  saith  the  Almighty  to  his  prophet,  "but  they 
have  rejected  me,  that  I  should  not  reign  over  them."  But 
did  their  compassionate  God  cast  them  off  for  this?  Nay, 
he  condescended  to  indulge  their  waywardness,  and  even 
appointed  their  king,  and  promised  them,  if  they  would 
but  be  faithful  to  the  divine  law,  that  they  should  still  ex- 
perience his  blessing.  Again,  in  the  reign  of  Rehoboam, 
ten  tribes  revolted  from  the  house  of  David,  and  chose  for 
themselves  Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Nebat,  to  govern  them. 
And  now  was  consummated  the  formal  schism  of  Israel  in 
their  religion;  for  they  forsook  Jerusalem  under  this  new 
political  temptation,  deserted  the  ark  of  the  covenant  and 
the  priesthood  appointed  by  the  Lord  in  the  midst  of  mighty 
signs  and  wonders,  and  accepted  the  wretched  substitutes 
of  the  calves  of  Dan  and  Bethel,  with  the  priests  which  Jero- 
boam made  of  the  lowest  of  the  people,  instead  of  the  glo- 
rious temple  of  Solomon,  and  the  sacred  line  of  the  holy 
Aaron.* 

*  It  may  be  thought,  perhaps,  that  this  separation  of  the  ten  tribes  can- 
not be  called  a  schism,  because  it  was  commanded  by  the  Deity.     But, 


23 

We  might  well  suppose  ihat  the  Most  High  would  avenge 
this  atrocious  contempt  of  his  own  solemn  order,  hy  a  total 
abandonment  of  his  rebellious  people.  And  doubtless  he 
would  have  done  so,  if  his  thoughts  were  as  our  thoughts, 
or  his  ways  as  our  ways.  But  though  the  schismatic  tribes 
of  Israel  had  wilfully  deserted  all  the  external  means  of 
grace,  on  a  mere  secular  apology,  yet  their  merciful  God 
did  not  desert  them.  When  they  forsook  his  chosen 
priesthood,  he  gave  them  prophets.  The  pre-eminent  Eli- 
jah and  Elisha  were  sent  to  proclaim  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
and  keep  his  people  from  idolatry.  And  strange  it  is  to 
mark  how  perfectly  silent  those  prophets  are  upon  the  sin 
of  schism.  They  say  nothing  to  heal  the  breach,  or  bring 
the  revolters  back  to  Judah.  Nay,  they  seem  to  yield  to 
the  evil  circumstances  of  the  time,  and  instead  of  endea- 
vouring to  obtain  help  from  the  Levites  or  the  Priests  of 
Sion,  they  accommodate  themselves  to  the  difficulty,  and 
train  up  their  schools  of  the  prophets  to  do  the  same  work,  as 
well  as  they  might,  in  another  way.  Still  the  Church  was 
not  extinct.  Still  the  Word  of  the  Lord  was  heard  and 
obeyed  in  Israel.  And  still,  in  the  darkest  hour  of  Elijah's 
despondency,  when  he  complained  that  he  was  left  alone, 
and  they  sought  his  life,  his  heart  was  cheered  by  the  di- 
vine assurance  that  his  work  had  not  been  in  vain.     "For 

as  St.  Augustin  well  argues,  the  Almighty  ordered  this  separation,  not 
for  the  purpose  of  dividing  religion,  but  in  order  to  divide  the  kingdom, 
as  a  judgment  upon  Judah.  For  God  never  commands  a  schism  or  a 
heresy.  Nor  does  it  follow  that  because  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  are  now 
divided,  therefore  Christian  unity  must  be  divided,  instead  of  the  same 
Universal  Church  being  found  in  them  all.  S.  Augustin  de  Unitate  Eccle- 
sise,  0pp.  Tom.  ix.  p.  245,  D.  Deus  enim  easdem  tribus  jusserat  separari, 
non  ut  religio,  sed  ut  regnum  divideretur,  et  hoc  modo  vindicaretur  in 
regnum  Judre.  Deus  autem  nunquam  jubet  schisma  vel  hseresim  fieri. 
Neque  enim  quia  et  in  orbe  terrarum  plerumque  regna  dividuntur,  ideo 
et  unitas  Christiana  dividitur,  enim  in  utraque  parte  catholica  inveniatur 
Ecclesia. 


29 

yet,"  saith  the  Most  High,  «/  have  reserved  unto  myself 
seven  thousand  men  in  Israel  that  have  not  bowed  the  knee 
to  Baal." 

The  iniquity  and  idolatry  of  Israel,  however,  at  last  pro- 
voke their  long-suffering  Lord  to  send  them  into  captivity. 
Judah,  notwithstanding  their  admirable  system  of  religious 
polity,  follows  the  sad  example,  and  shares  the  same  fate. 
Their  temple  is  profaned,  their  sacrifices  are  forbidden,  and 
yet  their  compassionate  God  does  not  abandon  them.  In 
their  dispersion  he  still  makes  them  his  chosen  witnesses. 
The  principles  of  his  holy  Word  are  scattered  amongst  the 
nations,  and  in  ten  thousand  ways  which  no  human  eye 
can  trace,  they  are  rendered  available,  as  a  seed  of  truth 
amongst  the  falsehoods  of  paganism,  prompting  the  purer 
breathings  of  heathen  philosophy,  counteracting  the  arts 
and  influence  of  Satan,  insensibly  preparing  the  way  for 
the  future  progress  of  the  gospel,  and  thus  subserving  the 
will  of  that  All-wise,  and  All-gracious  God,  who  accom- 
plishes his  ultimate  purposes  in  material  things,  not  only  by 
the  orderly  instruments  of  the  dew  and  the  sunshine,  but 
by  the  equally  appointed  agency  of  the  earthquake  and 
the  storm. 

In  due  time,  however,  a  fragment  of  the  Church  of  Judah, 
which  had  retained  the  order  of  the  priesthood,  is  per- 
mitted to  return  and  restore  the  walls  and  the  temple  of 
Jerusalem.  But  how  inferior  to  their  former  glory  do 
they  appear!  Where  is  the  ark?  Where  are  the  tables  of 
the  law?  Where  the  Urim  and  Thummim,the  Lights  and 
Perfections  of  the  first  sanctuary  ?  Where  the  strength, 
the  superhuman  power,  with  which  the  army  of  the  living 
God  once  went  forth, conquering  and  to  conquer?  Departed 
and  gone!  Sustained  by  the  capricious  allowance  of  a  hea- 
then despot,  taunted  by  their  enemies  on  every  side,  they 
labour  under  every  discouragement;  but  still  their  faith  is 
upheld  by  the  divine  promise  that  the  glory  of  the  latter 
4 


30 

house  should  yet  exceed  the  glory  of  the  former,  and  trusting 
in  that  hope,  they  persevere. 

And  when  the  fahiess  of  the  time  arrives,  the  star  from 
heaven  announces  to  the  eastern  magi  the  birth  of  him  who 
was  the  King  of  the  Jews,  and  the  angels  proclaim  to  the 
shepherds  of  Judea,  "  To  you  is  born  the  Saviour,  which  is 
Christ  the  Lord."  He  comes,  indeed,  to  his  temple,  the 
Shepherd  to  his  flock,  the  Master  to  his  household,  the 
Church.  His  personal  ministry  is  given  to  them  who 
were  emphatically  the  called,  the  chosen.  His  twelve 
apostles  are  sent  with  the  express  command  to  confine  their 
preaching,  as  yet,  to  the  cities  of  Israel.  And  although, 
when  he  came  unto  his  own,  his  ovvn  received  him  not, — al- 
though they  fulfilled,  unconsciously,  the  designs  of  God,  by 
wickedly  crucifying  the  Lord  of  life  and  glory, — yet  was  it 
in  the  temple  that  the  Holy  Ghost  manifested  his  power  to 
an  extent  far  more  stupendous  than  under  any  former  dis- 
pensation; thousands  of  the  ancient  covenant  people  bovved 
down  in  adoration  before  their  glorified  Redeemer,  a  great 
company  of  the  priests  were  obedient  unto  the  faith,  and 
thus,  it  was  a  part  of  the  literal  Israel  which  first  acknow- 
ledged their  spiritual  King,  in  obedience  to  the  very  prin- 
ciple on  which  alone  they  had  a  right  to  be  called  the  chil- 
dren of  Abraham.  For  in  the  sight  of  God,  he  was  not  a 
Jew  which  was  one  outwardly,  neither  was  that  circumci- 
sion which  was  outward  in  the  flesh,  but  he  was  a  Jew 
which  was  one  inwardly,  and  circumcision  was  of  the  heart; 
not  of  the  letter,  but  of  the  Spirit.* 

Hence  it  seems  manifest  that  God  did  indeed  set  the  apos- 
tles in  the  Church  before  his  mighty  power  was  manifested 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  consequently  this  was  not  the 
commencement  of  his  Church,  but  rather  the  commencement  or 
development  of  the  new  dispensation  which  the  prophets 
had  foretold.  And  therefore  the  true  Israel  became  the 
*  Romans  ii.  28—9. 


31 

proclaimers  of  salvation  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  the  apos- 
tles' commission  being  expressly  intended  not  to  originate 
a  distinct  Church  among  the   Gentiles,  but  to  graff  them 

UPON  THE   OLD  STOCK  OF  ISRAEL,  and  thuS  add  to  that  ONE 

CHURCH,  the  spouse  and  Bride  of  Christ,  such  as  should  be 
saved. 

The  same  principle  of  the  divine  order  governed  St, 
Paul  himself;  for  although  designed  to  be  a  chosen  vessel 
to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  yet  he,  like  the  rest, 
was  set  in  the  Church  of  Israel.  Therefore  we  find  him 
beginning  his  ministry  amongst  his  brethren  on  the  de- 
clared ground  of  this  divine  economy.  At  Antioch,  for 
instance,  he  and  Barnabas  went  into  the  synagogue,  and 
preached  the  gospel,  (Acts,  xiii.)  and  when  the  Jews  con- 
tradicted and  blasphemed,  (ver.  46,)  the  apostles  "  waxed 
bold,  and  said,  //  ivas  necessary  that  the  Word  of  God  should 
first  have  been  spoken  to  you;  but  seeing  ye  put  it  from  you, 
and  judge  yourselves  unworthy  of  everlasting  life,  lo,  we 
turn  to  the  Gentiles."  The  same  course  is  taken  through- 
out the  whole  history  of  his  apostleship,  and  in  the  last 
chapter  of  the  book,  when  at  Rome,  where  his  condition 
as  a  prisoner  confined  him  to  his  own  hired  house  with 
the  soldier  that  kept  him,  still  he  pursues  the  same  prin- 
ciple by  sending  for  the  Jews,  and  giving  them,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  acknowledged  right,  the  first  tidings  of  the  gospel. 

Viewed,  therefore,  in  the  light  of  Scripture,  there  is  but 
one  holy  and  universal  (or  catholic)  Church,  from  the  fall 
to  the  end  of  the  world.  That  Church,  according  to  the 
wisdom  of  God,  has  passed  through  many  dispensations, 
of  which  the  Patriarchal,  the  Levitical,  and  the  Apostolic 
are  the  chief.  These  various  dispensations  mark  the 
divine  order  appointed  for  the  Church,  but  none  of  them 
are  of  its  essence  or  being;  for  this  took  its  rise  from  the 
first  act  of  faith  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  announced  by 
the  Almighty  himself  in  paradise,  and  from  that  hour  the 
Church,  in  its  essential  principle,  has  never  been  extinct. 


32 

And  as  we  see  that  the  Church  passed  on,  at  first,  without 
any  fixed  order,  afterwards  with  a  strictly  appointed  priest- 
hood, often  troubled  with  the  grievous  sin  of  idolatry, 
and  distracted  by  heresy  and  schism,  which  brought  upon 
her  many  chastisements  from  the  hand  of  God,  while, 
nevertheless,  sustained  by  his  mercy,  she  survived  the 
whole,  so  we  must  admit,  that  although  every  wilful  de- 
parture from  the  apostolic  order  must  be  more  or  less 
injurious  to  the  purity  and  welfare  of  the  Church,  yet  it 
never  can  be  fatal,  while  the  substance  of  the  faith  remains. 
If  men  who  truly  believe,  mistakenly  reject  the  priests  of 
God,  we  may  trust  that  his  mercy  will  send  them  prophets, 
sooner  than  abandon  them,  as  he  did  to  the  ten  tribes 
which  revolted  from  Judah.  Only  let  them  take  heed  lest 
they  hasten,  by  this  grievous  fault,  the  time  of  their  cap- 
tivity to  error,  and  lest  that  captivity  be  one  from  whence 
there  can  be  no  return.  The  Lord  is  gracious  and  long- 
suffering,  slow  to  anger,  and  of  great  goodness.  But  a 
wilful  departure  from  his  divine  order,  in  any  respect,  is  at 
least  a  tempting  him.  And  we  know  who  it  was  that  said, 
Thou  shall  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God. 

It  is  possible,  however,  that  this  view  of  the  subject,  to 
some  minds,  may  involve  an  apparent  contradiction  to  the 
language  of  St.  Paul,  who  contrasts  so  strongly  the  Mosaic 
with  the  Christian  dispensation,  especially  throughout  his 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  difficulty,  I  trust,  will  vanish, 
when  it  is  remembered,  that  the  apostle  is  not  speaking  of 
the  Church  with  respect  to  its  essential  principle,  but  only 
with  respect  to  its  change  of  formal  development.  The 
distinction  may  be  readily  illustrated  from  the  language  of 
the  same  inspired  writer  concerning  himself.  "When  I 
was  a  child,"  saith  he,  "  I  spake  as  a  child,  I  understood 
as  a  child,  I  thought  as  a  child ;  but  when  I  became  a  man, 
^  I  put  away  childish  things."  Here  is  a  familiar  and 
marked  contrast,  which  every  one  admits,  between  child- 
hood and  maturity.     Form,  faculties,  intelligence,  duties, 


33 

relations, — all  are  changed  for  a  new,  more  comprehensive, 
more  elevated,  and  incomparably  more  effective  condition. 
And  yet,  who  does  not  perceive  that  in  every  thing  which 
is  of  the  essence  of  humanity,  the  child  and  the  man  are 
one  and  the  same? 

In  order  that  this  view  of  the  subject  may  lack  no  evi- 
dence which  can  serve  to  establish  it,  I  proceed  to  show 
how  well  it  accords  with  the  sentiments  of  the  Fathers, 
adding  the  originals  below  for  the  satisfaction  of  those  who 
may  prefer  consulting  them,  and  stating  only  their  sub- 
stance in  English,  for  the  sake  of  brevity. 

[1]  Irenseus,  (A.  D.  170,)  writing  in  opposition  to  the 

[1]  (S.  Ircjiasi,  Lib.  iv.  contra  Hsereses.  c.  vii.  §  3  &  4.  p.  2  3  5 — 6.) 
Unus  igitur  et  idem  Deus  qui  advoqavit  Abraham,  et  repromissionem  ei 
dedit. — Revelat  autem  omnibus  Filius,  quibus  velit  cognosci,  Patrem,  et 
neque  sine  bona  voluntate  Patris,  neque  sine  administratione  Filii  cog- 
noscet  quisquam  Deum.  Et  propter  hoc  dicebat  discipulis  Dominus: 
Ego  sum  via,  Veritas,  et  vita.  Et  nemo  venit  ad  Patrem,  nisi  per  me. — 
Propter  hoc  Judaei  excesserunt  a  Deo,  Verbum  ejus  non  lecipientes,  sed 
putantes  per  seipsum  Patrem  sine  Verbo,  id  est,  sine  Filio,  po§se  cog- 
noscere  Deum,  nescientes  eum  qui  in  figura  loquutus  est  huinana  ad 
Abraham,  et  iterum  ad  Moj'sem,  dicentem:  Videns  vidi  vexaliuncm 
popu/i  mti  in  .M^gypto,  et  dcscendi  Uberare  cos, — Ministrat  enim  ad 
omnia  sua,  progenies  et  figuratio  sua,  id  est  Filius,  ct  Spiritiis 
Sanctus,  Verbum  et  Sapiejitia.  (ib.  c.  viii.  §  1.)  Vanus  autem  et 
Marcion,  et  qui  ab  eo,  expellentes  ab  haereditate  Abraham, — frustrantes 
et  blaspliemantes  Deum,  qui  in  Regnum  ccelorum  inlroducit  Abraham, 
et  semen  ejus,  quod  est  Ecclesia,  per  Jesum  Christum,  cui  et  adoptio 
redditur,  et  hasreditas  quae  Abraha3  promissa  est.  ib.  c.  ix.  §  1.  p. 
237.  Unius  igitur  et  ejusdem  substantias  sunt  omnia,  hoc  est,  ab  uno  et 
eodem  Deo,  quemadmodum  et  Dominus  ait  discipulis;  Propterea  omnis 
scriba  doctus  in  Regno  ccelorum  similis  est  hornini  patrifamilias ,  qui  prof ert 
de  i/tesavro  suo  nova  et  Vetera.  Non  alterum  quidem  Vetera,  alterum  vero 
proferentem  nova  docuit,  sed  unum  et  eundem.  Paterfamilias  enim 
Dominus  est,  qui  universal  domui  pateina;  dominatur:  et  servis  quidem, 
et  adhuc  indisciplinatis  condignam  tradens  legem;  liberis  autem,  et  fido 
justificatis  congruentia  dans  prmcepta,  et  filiis  adaperiens  suam  heredi- 
tatem. — Utraque  autem  Testamenta  unus  et  idem  Paterfamilias  produxit, 
Verbum  Dei,  Dominus  noster  Jesus  Christus,  quiet  Abrahae  et  Moysi 
coUoquutus  est,  et  nobis  in  novitate  reslituit  libertatem,  et  mulliplicavit 
earn,  qua  ab  ipso  est,  gratiam. 

4* 


34 

Gnostics,  who  denied,  that  the  same  Deity  could  be  the 
author  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  saith  "that  no  one 
can  know  God  without  the  revelation  of  the  Son,  that  Christ 
spake  in  a  human  form  with  Abraham,  and  again  with 
Moses,  that  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Word  and 
the  Wisdom,  minister  to  all,  that  God  introduced  Abraham 
and  his  seed  which  is  the  Church,  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  that  one  and  the  same  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Master  of  the  household,  produced  both  the  Testaments, 
who  spake  with  Abraham  and  Moses,  and  gave  us  new 
liberty,  and  multiplied  that  grace  which  is  from  him  only." 

So,  too,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  (A.  D.  195,)  declares,  [2] 
"  that  as  the  will  of  God  is  work,  which  is  called  the  world, 
so  his  will  is  the  salvation  of  men,  and  this  is  called  the 
Church,  that  all  are  neighbours  who  participate  in  the 
Spirit,  that  Abraham  is  the  father  not  only  of  the  Jews,  but 
also  of  the  Gentiles,  that  God  was  with  one  people,  namely 
the  Jews,  bearing  the  law;  then  calling  the  Gentiles,  he 
gathered  a  second  people,  that  these  two  united  form  one 
new  man,  in  whom  he  dwells,  namely  the  Church:  for  it  is 
not  the  place  which  I  call  the  Church,"  saith  Clement, 
"  but  the  congregation  of  the  chosen." 

Origen,  (A.  D.  248,)  writes  as  follows:  [3]  "  But  since 

[2]  (dementis  Mexan.  PcEdag.  L.  1.  j).  93.)  Numquara  est  Deus 
imbecillus.  Quemadmodum  enim  ejus  voluntas  est  opus,  et  id  mundus 
nominatur;  ita  etiam  ejus  voluntas  est  honiinum  salus,  et  ea  vocata  est 
Ecclesia.  {lb.  Stromata.  L.  3.  p.  430.  B  )  Quomodo  autem  non  propin- 
quus,  qui  potest  spiritus  esse  particeps?  Non  solum  enim  Hebreeorum, 
sed  etiam  Gentium  pater  est  Abraham.  (lb.  p.  455.)  Fuerit  autem  mul- 
torum  quoque  concordia  ex  tribus  numerata,  cum  quibus  est  Dominus, 
una  Ecclesia,  unus  homo,  genus  unum.  An  non  cum  uno  quidem  Judaeo 
erat  Dominus  legem  ferens.  Jam  autem  prophetans,  et  Hieremiam  mittens 
Babylonem,  quinetiam  eos  qui  erant  ex  gentibus  vocans  per  prophetiam, 
congregavit  duos  populos.  Tertius  autem  est  unus, qui  ex  duobus  creatur 
in  novum  hominem,quo  inambulatet  inhabitat  in  ipsa  Ecclesia.  (lb.  L. 
VII.  p.  715.)  Non  enim  nunc  locum,  sed  electorum  congregationem 
apelio  Ecclesiam. 

[3]  (Originis  Com.  in  Mat.  Tom.  l.p.  357.)  Sed  quoniam  Apostolus 
de  Christo  et  Ecclesia  id  dictum  esse  vult;  Et  erunt  duo  in  came  una, 


»5 

the  apostle  applies  to  Christ  and  the  Church  the  saying 
that  they  two  shall  be  one  flesh,  we  may  understand  that 
Christ  did  not  put  away  his  first  spouse,  the  synagogue, 
(faithfully  observing  the  rule,  those  whom  God  hath  joined 
together,  let  no  man  put  asunder,)  until  she  became  an  adul- 
teress, being  corrupted  by  the  wicked  one,  and  with  him 
laying  snares  for  her  Lord,  delivering  him  to  be  killed  and 
saying,  Take  this  man  away  from  the  earth,  crucify  him, 
crucify  him.  Therefore  it  may  be  said  that  she  departed 
from  him,  rather  than  that  he  put  her  away  as  one  divorced. 
Hence  he  speaks  of  this  divorce  in  Isaiah,  saying,  Where  is 
the  bill  of  your  mother'' s  divorcement,  by  which  I  put  her  aivay?'* 
And  again,  this  eminent  father  saith,  "  See,  therefore,  how 
the  saying  (of  St.  Paul,)  /  am  crucified  icilh  Christ,  may  be- 
long, not  only  to  the  saints  who  lived  after  the  coming  of 
Christ,  but  also,  and  equally,  to  those  who  lived  before  it, 
lest  we  should  say  that  the  saints  who  were  after  his 
coming,  differed  from  Moses  and  the  Patriarchs.  There- 
fore that  text,  /  live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  livelh  in  me,  may 
be  said  of  the  saints  who  were  before  as  well  as  those  who 
were  since  his  coming.     For  we  maintain  and  teach,  that 

dicendam  est  non  aliam  ob  causam,  priorem,  ut  ita  appellem,  conjugem 
ipsius,  priorem  nempe  Synagogam,  fuisse  repudiatam  a  Christo,  illud  ser- 
vante:  Quos  Deus  conjunxit  homo  non  separet,  quam  quod  a  Malo  vitiata 
Iiaec  mulier  fornicata  est,  et  cum  eo  insidias  viro  suo  struxit,  eumque 
neci  dedit  dicens:  Tolle  ejusmodi  hominem  de  terra,  crucifige,  crucifige  eum. 
Ilia  igitur  discessit  potius  quam  vir  earn  repudiatam  dimisit.  Idcirco 
ipsius  divortlum  huic  in  Isaia  exprobrans  ait:  Quis  est  hie  liber  repudii 
matris  vestra,  quo  dcmisi  earn?''  This  idea  is  fully  and  largely  treated  in 
the  two  following  pages. 

(lb.  Com.  in  loannem,  Tom.  2.  p.  298-9.)  Vide  vero,  an  non  tantum 
sanctorum,  qui  post  Christi  adventum  fuere,  sit  vox  ilia:  Cum  Christo 
crudfixus  sum,  sed  aequti  ad  priores  etiam  pertineat,  ne  difFerre  dicamus 
sanctos,  qui  post  Christi  adventum  fuere,  a  Moyse,  et  Patriarchis.  Vox 
ilia  quoque:  Vivo  ego,  non  amplius  ego,  sed  vivit  in  me  Christus,  seque 
etiam  dicatur  non  solum  de  Sanctis,  qui  post  Christi  adventum  fuere, 

verum  etiam  de  his,  qui  antea. Tradimus  enim  et  docemus,  numquara 

defuisse  Sanctis  spiritualem  Jesu  adventum,  atque  dispensationem. 


36 

at  no  time  were  the  advent  and  dispensation  of  Christ 
wanting  to  his  saints." 

The  same  doctrine  is  laid  down  by  Ambrose,  Bishop  of 
Milan,  where  he  saith,  [4]  that,  "those  who  conform  to 
Abraham  in  faith  and  in  good  works,  are  said  to  rest  in 
his  bosom."  Again  he  saith,  that  "Jesus  came  to  the  snare, 
that  he  might  set  Adam  free."  In  still  plainer  language  he 
declares,  that  "the  Holy  Church,  which  in  the  beginning  of 
the  world  xvas  belrolhed  in  Paradise,  prefigured  in  the 
deluge,  announced  by  the  law,  and  called  by  the  prophets, 
for  a  long  time  expected  the  coming  of  her  beloved,  the 
redemption  of  men,  and  the  glory  of  the  gospel,"  &c. 

Elsewhere  the  same  author  saith,  [5]  that  "  the  Church 
is  bound  together,  when  hope  has  gone  before,  and  faith  is 

.  [4]  .S.  ^mbrosii,  In  Ps.  38,  Jinar.  Tom.  ].  p.  846.  §  11.  Unde  et  justi 
in  Abrahas  sinu  requiescere  leguntur,  quod  in  ejus  gratia,  in  ejus  requie, 
in  ejus  placiditate  requiescant,  qui  conformein  ei  induerint  fidem,  et 
eamdein  in  bonis  operibus  fecerint  voluntatem. 

{lb.  in  Ps.  118,  En.  p.  1039,  §  22.)  Quot  vitia,  tot  retiaj  quot  peccata, 
tot  laquei;  hereditarii  jam  te  nexus  tenebant.  Venlt  ad  laqueos  Jesus, 
ut  Adam  solveret;  venit  liberare  quod  perierat. 

(lb.  Sermo  primus,  p.  974,  §  4.)  Ita  ergo  et  sancta  Ecclksia  (ivm  in 
pniMOKDiis  MUNDi  DKSPONSATA  IN  PARADiso,  prffifigurata  in  diluvio,  an- 
nuntiata  per  Legem,  vocata  per  prophetas,  diu  redemplionein  liominum, 
Evangelii  decorem,  dilecti  expectasset  adventum,  &c. 

(lb.  Expos.  Evang.  secundum  Luc.  L.  3,  p.  131G,  §  7.)  Prior  Abraham 
qui  ante  Moysi  legem,  et  ante  populum  Judceoruni  propria  derelinquens, 
et  cognoscons  Deum,  meruit  fidei  testimonium;  quia  credidlt  Deo,  et  re- 
■putalum  est  ei  ad  justitiam: — Vides  igitur  congregitiones  gentium,  et 
sacrosanctum  Ecolesias  coDtum  oraculo  divino  liuic  esse  primo  promis- 
sum.  Et  ideo  is  auctor  generis  debuit  design'ari,  qui  instaurandae  Eccle- 
sice  sponsionem  primus  emeruit. 

[5.]  (lb.  Tom.  2,  p.  220,  §  53,  Dc  Virg.)  Cum  spes  prsEcesserit,  fides 
fundata  fuerit,  ordinatur  caritas,  Ecclesia  copulatur. 

(lb.  De  Inc.  Dam.  Sacrum.  C.  v.  §  34,  p.  7]  1 .)  Fides  ergo  est  Ecclesioe 
fundamentum:  non  enim  de  carne  Petri,  sed  de  fide  dictum  est,  quia 
porta3  mortis  ei  non  praevalebunt:  sed  confessio  vicit  infernum. 

(lb.  de  obit.  Tlicod.  Oral.  §  8,  »&  9,  p.  1200.)  Quid  enim  est  fides,  nisi 
rerum  earum,  quse  sperantur,  substantia?  Ergo  si  substantia  eoruni 
qute  sperantur,  fides  est;   quanto  magis  eorum  quas  videntur?     Bona 


37 

established,  and  charity  is  ordained.  Faith  is  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Church;  for  it  was  not  of  the  flesh  but  of  the 
faith  of  Peter,  that  it  was  said:  'The  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it:'  the  confession  of  faith  overcame  hell." 
And  again,  saith  he,  "that  faith  is  good,  of  which  it  is 
written,  'The  just  shall  live  by  faith.'  Our  fathers  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  and  Jacob,  gave  their  testimony  in  this  warfare 
of  faith,  and  therefore  they  have  left  to  us  the  inheritance 
of  faith." 

Jerome  presents  another  view  of  the  extent  to  which 
the  word  Church  was  properly  used,  in  his  commentary 
on  St.  Paul's  epistle  to  the  Galatians.  [6]  "  The  apostle  ad- 
dresses," saith  he,  "  the  Churches  of  Galatia,  and  thus  it 
is  to  be  observed  that  here  only  he  writes  not  to  the 
Church  of  a  single  city,  but  to  the  Churches  of  a  whole 
province,  and  he  calls  them  Churches,  which  afterwards 
he  reproves  as  depraved  by  error.  From  which  we  may 
learn,  that  the  word  Church  has  a  twofold  meaning;  that 
which  has  neither  spot  nor  wrinkle,  and  is  truly  the  body 
of  Christ,  and  that  which  is  gathered  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
but  without  full  and  perfect  virtues." 

From  the  great  Augustin,  however,  on  this,  as  on  most 
other  subjects,  we  may  obtain  the  most  distinct  and  accu- 
rate ideas.    Thus  in  one  place  he  saith,  [7]  "  the  Church  was 

fides,  de  qua  scriptum  est;  Justus  autem  ex  fide  vivit. —  §  9,  Quoniara  in 
hac  fidei  militia  testimonium  consequuti  sunt  seniores  nostri  Abraham, 
Isaac  et  Jacob.     Et  ideo  hereditatem  nobis  fidei  reiiquerunt, 

[6]  (S.  Hieron.  Com.  in  Epist.  ad  Gal.  C.  1,  Tom.  4,  L.  ix.  p.  124.) 
Quod  autem  ait:  Ecclesiis  Galatise,  et  hoc  notandum,  quia  hie  tantum 
generaliter  non  ad  unam  Ecclesiam  unius  urbis,  sed  ad  totius  provinciae 
scribat  Ecclesias,  et  Ecclesias  vocet,  quas  postea  errore  arguat  deprava- 
tas.  Ex  quo  noscendum  dupliciter  Ecclesiam  posse  dici,  et  earn  quae  non 
habet  maculam  aut  rugam,  et  vere  corpus  Christi  sit,  et  earn  quce  in 
Christi  nomine  absque  plenis  perfectisque  virtutibus  congregetur. 

[7]  {S.  ^ugustini,  In  Ps.  128,  Enar.  §  2.  Tom.  4,  p.  1083.)  Olim  est 
Ecclesia:  ex  quo  vocantur  sancti,  est  Ecclesia  in  terra.  Aliquando  in 
solo  Abel  Ecclesia  erat,  et  expugnatus  est  a  fratre  malo  et  perdito  Cain. 


38 

in  old  time;  for  that  in  which  the  saints  are  called,  is  the 
Church  in  the  earth.  At  one  period  the  Church  was  in 
Abel  alone,  and  he  was  assaulted  by  his  reprobate  brother 
Cain.  Sometimes  the  Church  was  in  Enoch  alone,  and  he 
was  translated  from  among  the  wicked.  Sometimes  the 
Church  was  only  in  the  house  of  Noah,  and  he  suffered 
from  all  those  who  perished  in  the  deluge,  and  the  ark 
alone  floated  on  the  waves,  and  came  forth  on  dry  ground. 
Sometimes  the  Church  was  in  Abraham  alone,  and  we 
know  how  much  he  suffered  from  the  wicked.  The 
Church  was  in  his  nephew  Lot,  and  in  his  house  in  Sodom, 
and  he  suffered  the  iniquities  and  perverseness  of  the 
Sodomites,  until  God  delivered  him  from  the  midst  of 
them.  The  Church  began  to  be  among  the  people  of 
Israel,  and  suffered  from  Pharaoh  and  the  Egyptians.  A 
number  of  holy  men  began  to  be  in  the  Church  herself, 
that  is,  in  the  people  of  Israel,  and  Moses  and  the  other 
saints  suffered  from  the  wicked  Jews.  Therefore  let  not 
the  Church  be  surprised,  nor  let  any  one  who  wishes  to 
be  a  good  member  of  the  Church  be  surprised,  when  he 
hears  his  mother  the  Church  saying  to  him,  Wonder  not  at 
this,  my  son,  for  ihey  have  often  fought  against  me  from  my 
youth." 

Again,  saith  the  same  distinguished  father:  [8]  "  For  who 

Aliquando  in  solo  Enoch  Ecclesiaerat,  et  translatiis  est  ab  iniquis.  Ali- 
quando  in  sola  domo  Noe  Ecclesia  erat,  et  pertulit  omnes  qui  diluvio 
perierunt,  et  sola  area  natavit  in  fluctibus,  et  evasit  ad  siccuni.  Ali- 
quando in  solo  Abraham  Ecclesia  erat,  et  quanta  pertulit  ab  iniquis,  no- 
vimus.  In  solo  filio  fratris  ejus  Lot,  et  in  dorao  ejus  in  Sodomis  Ecclesia 
erat,  et  pertulit  Sodomorum  iniquitates  et  perversitates,  quo  usque  Deus 
eum  de  medio  ipsorum  liberavit.  Ccepit  esse  et  in  populo  Israel  Ecclesia, 
pertulit  Pharaoneni  et  ^^gyptios.  Cocpit  et  in  ipsa  Ecclesia,  id  est,  in 
populo  Israel,  numerus  esse  sanctorum;  Moyses  et  ceteri  sancti  pertu- 
leruntiniquos  Judteos  populum  Israel.— Ideo  ne  miraretur  modo  Ecclesia, 
vel  ne  quisquam  miraretur  in  Ecclesia,  volens  esse  membrum  bonum 
Ecclesice,  audiat  et  ipsam  Ecclesiani  matrem  suam  dicentem  sibi:  Noli 
mirari  ad  ista,  fili;  Sxpe  expugnaverunt  me  a  juvenCute  mea. 

[8]  {lb.  in  Psal.  50,  p.  352;  §  17.)     Quls  enim  sine  illo  (so,  Christo) 


39 

can  be  healed  without  Christ?  Since  before  he  was  born 
of  Mary,  in  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word 
was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God:  and  thus  the  dis- 
pensation in  which  he  was  to  take  our  flesh  upon  him,  was 
beheved  as  future,  just  as  we  believe  it  as  past.  The  periods 
are  changed,  but  nol  tliefailh.'^ 

Elsewhere  Augustin  saith:  [9]  "  Consider  that  the  whole 
Church  is  in  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  yea  the  whole  seed 
of  Israel ;  not  only  that  which  is  according  to  the  flesh,  but 
according  to  the  faith.  For  the  apostle,  speaking  to  the 
gentiles,  saith.  If  ye  are  of  Christ,  then  are  ye  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.  Therefore 
we  are  all  blessed  in  the  God  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  and 
Jacob.  Truly  he  blessed  a  certain  tree,  and  made  it  an 
olive,  as  saith  the  apostle,  namely,  Those  holy  Patriarchs, 
from  whom  flourished  the  people  of  God;  but  from  thence 
the  proud  branches  were  broken  off,  that  is,  the  impious 
and  blaspheming  people  of  the  Jews.  Nevertheless  the 
good  and  useful  branches  remained,  for  from  them  are  the 

sanari  potuitr  Quia  et  anteqnam  de  Maria  nasceretur,  in  principio 
erat  Verburn,  et  Verbum  erat  apud  Deum,  et  Deus  erat  Verbum:  et  ita  a 
Sanctis  patribus  dispensatio  suscepta;  carnis  futura  credebatur,  sicut  a 
nobis  facta  creditur.  Tempora  variata  sunt,  non  fides."  See,  on  the 
same  subject,  page  610  of  same  vol.  §  2. 

[9]  (lb.  Ills.  §  7.  Enar.  in  Psal.  134.)  In  Abraham,  et  Isaac  et  Jacob 
totam  Ecciesiam  ejus  cogitate,  omne  semen  Israel  cogitate j  omnem 
autem  semen  Israel,  non  solum  quod  est  ex  came,  sed  etiam  quod  est  ex 
fide.  Apostolus  enim  Gentibus  loquebatur,  quibus  dicebat.  Si  ergo 
vos  Christi,  ergo  semen  Abrahae  estis,  secundum  promissionem 
haeredes.  Benedicimur  ergo  omnes  in  Deo  Abraham  et  Isaac  et 
Jacob.  Arborem  quidem  benedixit  quamdam,  eamque  olivam  creavit, 
sicut  dixit  Apostolus,  ipsos  Patriarchas  sanctos,  unde  effloruit  populus 
Dei;  sed  haec  arbor  olivce  putata  est,  non  amputata,  et  inde  superbi 
rami  fracta  sunt:  ipse  est  blasphemus  et  impius  populus  Judseorum. 
Manserunt  tamen  rami  boni  et  utiles;  nam  inde  apostoli,  et  ciim  ibi 
rami  utiles  relicti  essent,  per  Dei  misericordiam  insertus  est  et  oleaster 
Gentium,  &c.  Hasc  una  arbor  est  perlinens  ad  Abraham  et  Isaac  et 
Jacob,  &c. 


40 

apostles.  And  along  with  them,  by  the  mercy  of  God,  the 
wild  olive  of  the  gentiles  was  inserted.  Therefore  this  one 
tree  belongs  to  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob." 

In  another  place  he  uses  this  language:  [10]  "Understand 
the  Church,  brethren,  as  not  being  in  those  alone  who  began 
to  be  saints  after  the  advent  and  birth  of  our  Lord,  but  all 
who  were  holy  belong  to  the  same  Church.  For  our  fa- 
ther Abraham  belongs  also  to  us,  although  he  lived  before 
Christ  was  born  of  the  virgin." 

Copious  as  these  extracts  from  this  admirable  writer  are, 
I  cannot  refuse  myself  the  pleasure  of  adding  one  passage 
more,  [11]  "Certainly,"  saith  Augustin,  "the  saying  is 
manifest  that  we  must  be  in  the  Church  within  and  with- 
out, and  it  is  to  be  understood  as  respects  the  heart,  and  not 
the  body;  wherefore  all  who  in  heart  are  in  the  Church,  are 
saved  in  the  unity  of  the  ark  by  the  same  water,  by  which 
all  who  in  heart  are  without,  whether  they  are  bodily  without 
or  not,  shall  perish  as  the  enemies  of  unity." 

A  similar  idea  is  well  expressed  by  the  celebrated  Chry- 
sostom,  where  he  saith:  [12]  "The  Church  is  nothing  else 
but  the  house  constructed  of  our  souls." 

I  pass  on  to  another  of  the  fathers,  Prosper,  of  Aquitaine, 
who  speaks  of  the  Church  as  follows:  [13]  "This  truly  is  to 

[10]  lb.  Tom.  5,  p.  11,  F.)  Ecclesiam  autetn  accipite,  Fratres,  non 
in  his  solis  qui  post  Domini  adventum  et  nativitatem  esse  coeperunt 
sancti,  sed  omnes  quotquot  fuerunt  sancti,  ad  ipsam  Ecclesiam  perti- 
nent. Non  enim  non  ad  nos  pertinet  pater  Abraham,  quia  ille  fuit  an- 
tequam  Chrislus  nasceretur  de  Virgine,  &c. 

[II]  {-^ug.  de  Baplismo  contra  Donat.  L.  v.  §  39.  Tom.  9.  p.  108.) 
Certe  manifestum  est,  id  quod  dicitur,  in  Ecclesia  intus  et  foris,  in  corde, 
non  in  corpore  cogitandum;  quandoquidem  omnes,  qui  corde  sunt  intus,*" 
in  arese  unitate  per  eandem  aquam  salvi  fiunt,  per  quam  omnes  qui  corde 
sunt  foris,  sivc  etiam  corpore  foris  sint,  sive  non  sint,  tamquara  unitatis 
adversarii  moriuntur. 

[12]  {S.  Chrysostomi,  Ad  Ephes.  C.  4,  Horn.  x.  Tom.  4,  p.  921.)  Nam 
nihil  aliud  est  Ecclesia,  quam  ex  nostris  animabus  constructa  domus. 

[13]  (S.  Prosper.  Expos,  in  Ps.  124, 5  &  6,  p.  474,  A  )  Quod  utique  de 
tola  Ecclesia  intelligendum  est,  quse  est  Jerusalem,  in  omnium  compage 


41 

be  iindei'stood  of  the  whole  Church,  which  is  Jerusalem, 
one  house  in  the  connexion  of  all  the  saints,  and  one  tem- 
ple, and  one  city,  whose  construction,  the  Lord  being  the 
builder,  rises  from  the  beginning  even  to  the  end:  without 
whose  grace  nothing  is  solid,  nothing  firm,  but  all  is  vain 
and  sure  to  go  to  ruin." 

Again,  [14]  "He  speaks  in  these  words  to  the  Church, 
which  having  arisen  from  the  beginning  of  the  human  race, 
was  absent  from  no  generation." 

And  elsewhere  saith  the  same  writer,  [15]  "When  our 
fathers  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  inhabited  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan, they  were  strangers  there,  before  they  should  receive 
it  for  a  heritage.  But  God  permitted  no  one  to  liurt  them, 
so  that  the  protection  of  God  seemed  to  say,  Touch  not 
mine  anointed,  &c.  We  see,  therefore,  that  they  were  al- 
ready called  anointed,  although  the  holj^  anointing  oil 
(Chrism)  was  not  yet  in  use,  because  they  lived  in  that 
faith,  which  was  to  be  revealed  in  the  last  days.  For 
from  the  beginning,  the  justification  of  all  the  saints  was  in 
Christ  alone." 

I  shall  next  quote  Leo  the  Great,  (A.  D.  450,)  who  is 
clear  and  express  upon  the  same  doctrine.    [16]  "  Finally," 

sanctorum  una  domus,  et  unum  templum,  et  una  civitas,  cujus  extructio 
ab  initio  usque  ad  finem,  Domino  cedificante,  consurgit:  sine  cujus  gratia 
nihil  est  solidum,  nihil  firmum,  sed  vana  omnia  atque  ruitura. 

[14]  {10.  Expos,  in  Ps.  118,  p.  4G1,  A.)  Verbis  Ecclesiss  loquitur,  quag 
ab  initio  humani  generis  exorta,  nullis  generationibus  defuit. 

[15]  {lb.  Expos,  in  Ps.  104,  p.  393  E.  &.3M  A)  Quando  in  terra 
Chanaan  habitaverunt  patres  Abraham,  et  Isaac,  et  Jacob,  peregrini 
erant  illic,  priusquam  illam  acciperent  in  hereditatem.  Non  enim  per- 
misit  Deus  ut  quisquam  illis  noceret;  ita  ut  ipsa  protectio  Dei  dicere 
videietur:  J^oiite  tangere  Christos  meos,  et  cetera- — Qui  ideo  jam  tunc 
Christi  dicti  sunt,  cum  adhuc  in  usu  Chrisma  non  esset;  quia  et  ipsi  in 
ea  vivebant  fide,  quae  erat  novissimis  temporibus  revelanda.  Ab  initio 
enim  omnibus  Sanctis  non  nisi  in  Christo,  justificatio  fuit. 

[16]  (S.  Lconis  Mag.  De  Vocat.  am.  gent.  L.  11,  c.  x.  p.  23.)  Denique 
si  ad  ipsa  mundi  exordia  recurramus,  inveniemus  omnium  sanctorum  qui 
5 


42 

saith  he,  "  if  we  recur  to  the  very  beginning  of  the  world, 
we  shall  find  that  the  Spirit  of  God  was  the  ruler  of  all  the 
saints  who  were  before  the  deluge,  on  which  account  they 
are  called  the  sons  of  God  :  for  so  saith  the  apostle  express- 
ly: '  As  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the 
sons  of  God."^ 

[17]  "That  first  people  of  God,"  saith  Leo,  elsewhere, 
"  was  ruled  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and,  by  the  instruction  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  abstained  from  the  society  and  customs  of 
the  accursed  and  reprobate," 

And  again  saith  our  author,  [18]  "This  faith,  before  the 
coming  of  the  Seed  concerning  whom  it  was  said  to  Abra- 
ham :  '  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed,^ 
was  contained  within  the  people  of  a  single  stock,  the  hope 
of  our  redemption  flourishing  among  the  true  Israelites.'" 

But  Gregory  the  Great  is  much  more  copious  and  ex- 
press upon  the  subject.      [19]  "Truly,"  saith  this  famous 

diluvium  praecesserunt,  Dei  Spiritum  fuisse  rectorem,  propter  quod  et 
filii  Dei  nominati  sunt,  quoniam,  sicut  ait  Apostolus;  Quicumque  Splrilu 
Dei  aguntur  hi  filii  sunt  Dei. 

[17.]  (/i.  p.  24.  c.  xiii.)  Regebatur  ergo  primus  ille  populus  Dei 
Spiritu  Dei,  et  a  maledicti  hac  praedamnati  populi  societate  ac  moribus  per 
eruditionem  Sancti  Spiritusabstinebat. 

[18.]  {lb.  p.  25.  c.  xiv.)  HaiC  autem  fides,  antequam  veniret  hoc 
semen,  de  quo  Abrahae  dictum  est:  In  se/nine  tuo  benedicentur  omnes 
(rentes  terrse;  intra  unius  stirpis  populum  continebatur,  vigente  apud 
veros  Israelitas  spe  redemptionis  nostrae. 

[19]  (S.  Gregorii  Mag.  In  Ezech.  L.  11.  Horn.  111.  0pp.  Tom.  1.  p. 
1336,  .4.)  El  quidem  ab  Abel  sanguine,  passio  jam  coepit  Ecclesice,  et 
una  est  Ecclesia  electorum  praecedentium  atque  scquentium. 

(lb.  Horn.  viii.  p.  1391.)  Sciendum  nobis  est,  quia  una  est  Ecclesia 
in  prredicatoribus  Testamenti  veteris  ac  novi. 

{lb.  in  Evang.  L.  1.  Horn.  xix.  p.  1510.)  Dominus — qui  habet  vineam, 
universalem  scilicet  Ecclesiam,  quag  ab  Abel  justo  usque  ad  ultimum 
electum  qui  in  fine  mundi  nasciturus  est,  quot  sanctos  protulit,  quasi  tot 
palmites  misit. 

{lb.  Tom.  2.  Ep.  Jo.  Episc.  Constant,  p.  743.)  Atque  ut  cuncta  brevi 
cingulo  locu  tionis  astringam,  Sancti  ante  Legem,  Sancti  sub  Lege,  Sancti 
sub  gratia,  omnes  hi  perficientes  corpus  Domini,  in  membris  sunt 
Ecclesise  constituti. 


43 

Pontitf,  "the  suffering  of  the  Church  began  from  the  blood 
of  Abel,  and  it  is  all  one  Church  of  the  elect  whether  before 
or  after."  "  We  must  acknowledge  that  the  Church  is  one, 
in  the  preachers  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments." 
''  The  Lord — who  has  a  vine,  namely  the  Universal  Church, 
which  is  from  the  righteous  Abel  to  the  last  of  the  elect 
who  shall  be  born  in  the  end  of  the  world,"  &.c. — "And 
that  I  may  conclude  all  with  a  short  speech,  the  saints  be- 
fore the  law,  the  saints  under  the  law,  the  saints  under 
grace,  all  filling  up  the  body  of  the  Lord,  are  constituted 
members  of  his  Church." 

The  same  idea  meets  us  in  the  language  of  a  Collect  in 
the  old  Romish  Liturgy,  [20]  "Which  Church,  thou,  (0 
Lord)  hast  founded  in  the  patriarchs,  hast  prepared  in  the 
prophets,  hast  built  up  in  the  apostles." 

[21 J  "The  house  of  the  Lord,"  saith  Gregory,  elsewhere, 
"  is  rightly  understood  to  be  his  holy  Church,  which  is  said 
to  have  been  seated  in  Shiloh.  For  Shiloh  is  the  place 
where  the  ark  of  God  remained.  What,  therefore,  does 
Shiloh  in  this  place  signify,  but  the  tradition  of  the  Old 
Testament?  For  as  it  contains  the  ark  of  God,  so  doth  the 
Old  Testament  exhibit  the  carnal  letter  externally,  which 
holds  spiritual  knowledge  shut  up  in  its  secret  place.  What 
is  it,  therefore,  that  the  house  of  the  Lord  is  said  to  be 

[20.]  (Scholia  in  Lib.  Sac,  S.  Greg.  Fnpas.  opp.  Tom.  3,  p.  605.)  Quam 
(scilicet  Ecclesiam)  in  Patriarchis  fundasti,  in  Prophetis  praeparasti,  in 
Apostolis  condidisti. 

[21.]  (&  Greg.  Papa  Opp.  Tom.'i.  Pars  Secunda,  L.  l,m  Prim.  Reg. 
c.  1,  p.  27.  B.)  Domus  Domini  Sancta  Ecclesia  recte  intclligitur,  quae 
nimirum  in  Silo  sitaesse  perhibelur.  Silo  aulem  locus  est,  in  quo  area 
Dei  mansisse  perhibetur.  Quid  ergo  aliud  Silo  isto  in  loco  significat, 
quam  veteris  Legis  traditionem.  Nam  velut  arcam  Dei  continet,  dum 
carnalem  litteram  foris  exhibet,qu8e  in  suis  secretis  spiritalem  scientiam 
clausam  tenet  Quid  est  ergo,  quod  domus  Domini  in  Silo  sita  esse  per- 
hibetur, nisi  quia  sancta  Ecclesia  in  sacramento  Scripturarum,  velut  in 
loco  fundata,  cognoscitur?  Jlluc  Samuel  adductus  asseritur,  illic  oblatus; 
quia  prseter  sanctam  Ecclesiam  locus  non  est,  ubi  merita  virtutum  cres- 
cant,  et  ad  culmen  perfectionis  veniant- 


44 

placed  in  Shiloh,  unless  that  the  holy  Church  is  known  in 
the  sacraments  of  the  Scriptures,  as  in  its  established  place? 
Thither  Samuel  is  related  to  have  been  brought  up,  and 
there  offered,  because  there  is  no  place  besides  the  holy 
Church,  where  the  merits  of  the  virtues  grow,  and  come  to 
the  height  of  perfection." 

And  again,  saith  the  same  author:  [22]  "  Let  us  place  be- 
fore our  eyes  the  whole  human  race,  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world,  even  to  the  end,  namely,  the  whole  Church,  as 
being  one  spouse,  which  received  her  pledges  in  a  spiritual 
gift  by  the  law;  but  nevertheless  sought  the  presence  of 
her  bridegroom,  saying:  Let  him  kiss  me  with  the  kisses  of 
his  mouth.  For  here  the  holy  Church,  sighing  for  the 
coming  of  the  Mediator,  God  and  Man,  for  the  coming  of 
her  redemption,  addresses  her  prayer  to  the  Father,  that  he 
would  send  the  Son,  and  enlighten  her  with  his  presence; 
that  he  might  speak  to  her  not  only  by  the  prophets,  but 
with  his  own  mouth." 

With  all  this  corresponds  the  doctrine  of  Bernard,  in  the 
ninth  century,  who  says,  [23]  that  "The  body  of  Christ  is 
the  universal  Church  as  well  of  the  Old  as  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament." 

Lastly,  let  me  close  our  patristical  evidence  with  the 
sentence  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  to  prove  the  continuity  of  the 
idea.    [24]  "  The  holy  fathers,"  saith  this  master  of  school- 

[22]  {lb.  super  Cantica  Cant.  Expos,  c.  1,  p.  402.)  Ponamus  ante 
oculos  omne  genus  humanum  ab  exordio  mundi  usque  ad  finem  mundi, 
totarn  videlicet  Ecclesiam,  unam  esse  sponsam  qute  arrhas  spiritual! 
dono  per  Legem  perceperat:  sed  tamen  sponsi  sui  praesentiam  quaerebat, 
quDB  dicit;  Oscuhtur  me  osculo  oris  sui.  Suspirans  enim  sancta  Ecclesia 
pro  adventu  Mediatoris  Dei  et  hominum,  pro  adventu  Redemptionis  sui, 
ad  Patrera  orationem  facit,  ut  filium  dirigat,et  sua  iliam  praesentia  illustret) 
uteidem  Ecclesise  non  jam  prophetarum,  sed  suo  ore  allocutionem,  facial. 

[23]  (S.  Bernardi,  De  nat.  et  dig.  Amor.  Div.  c.  10,  p.  275,  D.) 
Corpus  Ciiristi  universa  est  Ecclesia  tam  veteris  quam  novi  Testamenti. 

[24]  (S.  Thomx  Aquin.  Summa  Tot.  Theol.  P.  3,  Q.  8.  £rt.  3.  Con.  p.  22. 
Ad  tertium  dicendura,  quod  sancti  Patres  non  insistebant  sacramentis 


45 

divinity,  "did  not  regard  the  sacraments  of  tiie  Law  as 
being  things,  so  much  as  the  images  and  shadows  of  future 
things.  But  the  motive  which  regards  the  image,  consi- 
dered as  an  image,  is  the  same  with  the  motive  which  re- 
gards the  thing.  Consequently  the  ancient  fathers,  in  ob- 
serving the  legal  sacraments,  were  united  to  Christ  by  the 
same  faith  and  love,  which  unite  ourselves  to  him.  And, 
therefore,  they  belonged  to  the  same  body  of  the  Church 
to  which  we  belong." 

The  foregoing  authorities,  from  Irenteus  to  Thomas 
Aquinas,  are  more  than  sufficient  to  sustain  the  doctrine, 
which  1  shall  further  enforce  by  the  words  of  our  Seventh 
Article. 

"  The  Old  Testament  is  not  contrary  to  the  New,  for 
both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament  everlasting  life  is  of- 
fered to  mankind  by  Christ,  who  is  the  only  Mediator  be- 
tween God  and  man.  Wherefore  they  are  not  to  be  heard, 
which  feign  that  the  old  fathers  did  look  only  for  transitory 
promises." 

Let  us  next  hear  the  venerable  Hooker,  as  the  best  re^ 
presentative  of  the  sense  of  the  Church  before  tlie  end  of 
the  sixteenth  century.*  "  This  visible  Church,'^  saith  he, 
"in  like  sort  is  but  one,  continued /rom  the  first  beginning  of 
the  world  to  the  last  end.  Which  company  being  divided 
into  two  moities,  the  one  before,  the  other  since  the  comina: 
of  Christ;  that  part,  which  since  the  coming  of  Christ  partly 
hath  embraced  and  partly  shall  hereafter  embrace  the  Chrisr 
tian  religion,  we  term  as  by  a  more  proper  name,  the  Church 

legalibus  tanquam  quibusdam  rebus,  sed  siciit  iniaginibus  et  umbris  fu- 
turorum.  Idem  autem  est  motus  in  imaginem,  in  quantum  est  imago, 
et  in  rem. — Et  ideo  antiqui  Patres  servando  legalia  sacramenta,  fere- 
bantur  in  Christum  per  fidem  et  dilectionem  eandem,  qua  et  nos  in  ip- 
sum  ferimur,  Et  ita  Patres  antiqui  pertinebant  ad  idem  corpus  Ecclesice 
ad  quod  nos  pertinemus. 

*  Ecc.  Pol.  B.  3,  Ch.  I.  §  3,  vol.  I,  p.  427,  Keble's  ed.     See,  also,  Bar- 
row on  the  Unity  of  the  Church.     (Works,  vol.  VI.;  p.  497.) 

5^ 


46 

of  Christ."  Here  the  idea  is  clearly  and  strongly  expressed, 
two  moities,  but  one  Church. 

And  lastly,  Archbishop  Potter,  in  his  well  known  and 
ver}'-  elaborate  Discourse  of  Church  Government,  (Ch.  I.  p. 
2,)  plainly  saith,  that  the  "Jewish  and  Christian  Churches, 
though  they  differ  in  their  outward  polity,  are  the  same  in 
substance:  the  Jews  believed  in  Christ  to  come,  and  (hank 
of  that  spiritual  Rock  that  followed  them;  and  the  Christians 
are  saved  by  Christ  already  come;  but  both  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians are  members  of  the  same  Church  of  Christ.  Whence 
St.  Paul  compares  the  Church  to  a  tree,  in  which  there  are 
two  sorts  of  branches,  one  natural,  which  are  the  Jews;  the 
other  ingrafted,  which  are  the  Christian  converts  from 
Gentilism;  but  both  of  them  belong  to  the  same  slock.^^ 

The  inference  from  the  whole,  seems  to  me  undeniable. 
If  the  Church,  in  its  essential  character^  existed  before  the 
appointment  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  then  that  priesthood 
could  not  be  of  the  essence,  but  only  of  the  order  of  the 
Church.  The  abandonment  of  that  order,  on  a  light  pre- 
text, would  indeed  be  a  grievous  sin,  and  would  surely 
bring  down  its  appropriate  punishment.  Still  it  would  not, 
of  itself,  destroy  the  being  of  the  Church,  nor  utterly  pre- 
vent the  manifestations  of  the  divine  mercy,  as  we  see  in 
the  case  of  Israel.  In  like  manner,  since  the  Church  existed 
so  long  before  the  appointment  of  the  apostles,  their  mi- 
nistry also  was  not  of  the  essence  but  only  of  the  order  of 
the  Church.  And  although  a  wilful  rebellion  against  their 
authority,  like  that  of  Korah  and  his  company  against 
Aaron,  would  probably  have  involved  the  utter  destruction 
of  the  transgressors,  yet  the  case  stands  on  very  different 
ground  in  the  later  ages  of  the  Church's  history;  when  the 
despotism  and  corruption  of  Rome  rendered  a  reformation 
necessary,  and  the  awful  abuses  of  priestly  power  created  a 
natural  prejudice  against  the  whole  hierarchy,  which  made 
it  easy  for  the  most  conscientious  judgment  to  be  led  astray. 


*7 

Under  such  circumstances,  the  unnecessary  abandonment  of 
the  apostolic  ministry,  although  still  a  sin,  would  be  greatly 
mitigated  in  the  judgment  of  reason  as  well  as  charity;  and 
the  indulgent  allowance  of  our  merciful  Redeemer  might 
well  be  supposed  to  pardon  the  deviation,  and  still  bestow 
his  blessing,  as  he  did  in  the  far  less  excusable  case  of  Is- 
rael, desiring  to  cast  off  the  government  of  Samuel  that 
they  might  have  a  king.  And  thus  we  are  led  to  the  pre- 
cise conclusion  of  our  Church,  which  freely  allows  the  name 
and  character  of  Churches  to  our  non-episcopal  brethren, 
while  she  laments  their  want  of  the  apostolic  ministry  as  a 
grievous  defect,  and  takes  care  to  secure  its  perpetuity 
within  her  own  pale. 

I  am  al  most  ashamed,  beloved  brethren,  to  labour  so  plain 
and  hitherto  unquestioned  a  point  in  our  system  of  theology. 
But  the  favour  which  has  been  shown  of  late  to  the  con- 
trary doctrine,  and  the  very  serious  practical  consequences 
which,  in  my  humble  judgment,  are  likely  to  result,  seem 
to  have  laid  this  necessity  upon  me.  In  proof  both  of  the 
contrariety  and  its  consequences,  I  cannot  appeal  to  a  more 
unexceptionable  testimony  than  the  new  treatise  of  Mr. 
Palmer  on  the  Church;  a  work  of  very  extraordinary  merit 
for  method,  ingenuity,  and  erudition;  and  therefore  one  to 
which  I  should  willingly  bow,  in  deferential  submission,  if 
it  were  possible  for  me  to  reconcile  his  argument  with  the 
standard  of  divine  truth,  or  the  rule  of  Christian  responsi- 
bility. It  will  require  some  time  and  attention  to  estimate 
the  force  of  the  objections  which  I  am  bound  to  advance, 
but  not  more,  I  trust,  than  their  importance  will  be  found 
to  deserve. 

The  work  of  this  distinguished  author  sets  out  with  a 
proposition  which  cannot  be  controverted,  namely,  that  the 
Church  of  Christ,  being  his  body,  salvation  is  only  promised 
to  those  who  belong  to  it.  He  proves  satisfactorily,  from 
their  own  standards,  that  this  solemn  truth  has  been  pro- 


48 

fessed  not  only  by  the  primitive  writers,  but  by  all  deno- 
minations of  Christians  since  the  Reformation;  and  there- 
fore, whatever  secret  method  may  be  reserved  in  the  wis- 
dom of  God  for  those  who  have  never  heard  the  gospel,  It 
is  universally  admitted,  that,  "all  men  to  whom  the  gospel 
is  preached  must  be  members  of  this  Church,  when  sujfficienthj 
proposed  to  them,  on  pain  of  being  excluded  from  the  favour 
of  God  for  ever." 

The  essential  characteristics  of  this  Church  of  Christ,  are 
next  laid  down.  Its  visibility,  its  unity  in  communion,  its 
unity  in  faith,  the  sins  of  heresy  and  schism,  and  the  effects 
of  excommunication,  are  all  ably  and  learnedly  treated. 
But  I  have  no  intention  of  reviewing  each  specific  link  in 
the  chain  of  his  argument.  1  pass  on,  therefore,  to  the 
conclusions  which  seem  to  me  so  hostile  to  correct  prin- 
ciple. 

The  eighth  chapter  of  the  first  part  is  devoted  to  the  pro- 
position, that  the  apostolical  succession  of  episcopal  ordinations 
to  the  ministry  is  essential  to  the  Church.  The  twelfth  chap- 
ter and  fourth  section  advocates  the  necessary  result,  that 
the  Lutherans,  Calvinists,  and  Zuinglians  ^'could  not  be  con^ 
sidered  as  Churches  of  Christ,  properly  speaking;  though  they 
might  have  been  called  so  in  a  general  and  popular  way,  as 
being  internally  united  to  the  Church."  And  the  thirteenth 
chapter,  treating  the  position  of  the  English  Dissenters,  af- 
firms that  ^'they  are  no  part  of  the  Church  of  Christ."  Many 
subordinate  arguments  are  urged  for  this  conclusion,  but 
the  leading  one  is  derived  from  the  alleged  principle,  "that 
separation  from  a  Christian  Church  is  incapable  of  excuse, 
that  no  reason  can  possibly  justify  it,  and  that  the  society  so 
formed  by  such  an  act  of  separation  is  entirely  cut  off  from 
Christian  unity  and  from  the  true  Church  of  Christ."  (p.  402.) 
The  same  arguments  are  applied  with  the  same  result  (p. 
576-7)  to  the  Presbyterians  of  Scotland. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Church  of  Rome  is  maintained  to 


4^ 

be  a  branch  of  the  true  Church  of  Christ,  in  common  with 
every  other  Church  which  can  trace  its  descent  from  the 
apostles,  and  retains  the  original  Christian  creeds,  &c.  But 
it  is  ingeniously  insisted  that  in  England,  the  Romanists 
themselves  are  in  the  position  of  dissenters  and  schismatics, 
because  they  separated  from  the  Reformed  Church  of  Eng- 
land in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  (p.  305.)  And  in- 
asmuch as  "schismatics  do  not  cease  to  be  so  by  a  mere 
change  of  country,  therefore  the  papists  who  went  from 
England  to  establish  colonies  in  the  United  States  of  North 
America,  were  schismatics  when  they  arrived  there;  and 
always  remaining  separated  from  that  branch  of  the  Catholic 
apostolic  Church  which  was  established  there,  they  only 
perpetuated  their  schism.  In  fine,'^  continues  our  author, 
"when  America  received  bishops  from  our  Churches,  the 
schismatics  constituted  a  rival  episcopacy,  and  so  remain  to 
this  day,  separated  from  the  true  Church." 

It  is  very  obvious  that  on  these  principles,  the  Church  of 
England  would  seem  to  be  entirely  abandoned  to  the  charge 
which  the  Romanists  have  always  made  their  chief  point 
of  accusation,  namely,  that  the  Reformers  committed  a 
schism  by  separating  from  what  is  acknowledged  to  be  a 
true  and  apostolic  br^ch  of  the  Church  universal,  and 
thereby  cut  themselves  off  from  the  Church  of  Christ.  But 
from  this  consequence  our  author  thinks  his  theory  per- 
fectly protected,  by  denying  that  the  Church  of  England 
separated  herself  from  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the  act  of 
reformation,  and  by  charging  the  separation  upon  Rome,  as 
well  through  the  sentence  of  excommunication  fulminated 
against  Elizabeth  and  her  adherents,  as  through  her  formally 
withdrawing  the  English  Romanists  from  their  union  with 
the  established  Church,  and  setting  up  a  rival  priesthood, 
in  the  eleventh  year  of  that  sovereign's  reign. 

The  practical  working  of  these  principles  next  demands 
our  attention,  as  stated  in  our  author's  own  words. 


50 

"When  Roman  Churches,"  saith  he,  (p.  304,)  "were 
founded  in  South  America,  Canada,  the  Philippines,  &c.,  by 
the  Europeans  who  first  colonized  or  subdued  those  coun- 
tries, such  Churches  are  altogether  free  from  schism,  and 
are  invested  with  the  original  rights  of  Catholic  Churches, 
so  that  no  one  has  a  right  to  establish  rival  communities  among 
them,  ivith  a  view  to  oppose  their  authority  or  draw  proselytes 
from  them.  If  in  Canada,  the  English  community  united 
to  our  Catholic  Churches,  have  bishops  and  priests,  it  is 
only  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  because  the  Church  there  re- 
fuses them  communion,  and  they  are  properly  for  the  Eng- 
lish only.  The  arrangement  must  be  considered  only  provi- 
sional in  a  certain  measure,  and  not  designed  to  interfere  with 
the  prior  claims  of  the  Roman  Churches  there,  within  their  pro- 
per districts.  The  same  may  be  observed  of  our  clergy  on 
the  continent  of  Europe." 

Again,  in  answer  to  the  objection  that  upon  his  princi- 
ples, "  it  must  be  unlawful  for  any  one  to  separate  himself 
from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  become  a  Protestant  in 
France,  Germany,  &c."  our  author  replies:  "  It  is  always 
right  to  embrace  the  truth,  and  if,  in  consequence  of  main- 
taining the  truth,  any  one  should  be  excommunicated  by 
those  who  are  misled  by  the  authority  of  their  Church, 
erroneously  supposed  infallible,  he  is  not  in  schism,  and 
may  lawfully  consort  with  those  icho  are  not  themselves  in 
schism,  and  by  whom  the  truth   is    maintained.     But  he 

OUGHT    NOT    TO    FORSAKE    HIS  ChURCH    VOLUNTARILY,  but 

rather  remain  in  its  communion,  and  endeavour  with  pru- 
dence and  humility  to  edify  his  brethren."  (p.  316.) 

-'in  answer  to  the  further  objection,  that  upon  his  princi- 
ples "  it  is  unlawful  to  send  missionaries  among  the  Ro- 
man Churches,  to  establish  any  rival  worship,  seek  for  con- 
verts among  them,  &c., — our  author  replies,  (p.  317,)  "  The 
rule  of  fraternal  charity  encourages  different  parts  of  the 
Churchy  to  aid,  if  possible,  in  the  dissemination  of  perfect 


51 

Christianity  among  all  their  brethren.  Therefore  whatever 
can  be  done  by  writings  and  conferences,  managed  without 
acerbity,  and  wilhoul  intrusion  on  the  appointed  sphere  of 
others,  may  be  lawfully  resorted  to.  But  it  is  inconsis- 
tent WITH  THE  TRUE  PRINCIPLES  OF  CaTHOLIC  UNITY, 
FOR  ANY  BRANCH  OF  THE  CHURCH  TO  SEND  MISSIONARIES 
TO  RAISE  A  RIVAL  WORSHIP,  AND  SEEK  FOR  CONVERTS  IN 
THE  BOSOM  OF  ANOTHER," 

One  citation  more  seems  necessary  to  a  full  view  of  Mr. 
Palmer's  rule  of  Christian  duty  with  respect  to  Rome.  He 
states  very  fairly  the  objection,  that,  according  to  his  prin- 
ciples, since  "it  is  not  necessary  to  institute  an  examination 
into  particular  doctrines,  but  we  are  to  be  guided  in  a  great 
measure  b}'  the  Church;  it  follows,  that  if  an  Englishman 
were  resident  in  France  or  Spain,  he  ought  to  join  in  com- 
munion with  the  Roman  Churches  there;  and  in  order  to 
do  so,  ought  to  subscribe  the  creed  of  Pius  IV."  &c.  To 
this  our  author  answers,  that  "  the  law  of  unity  requires 

THAT    HE     SHOULD    BE    WILLING    TO    COMMUNICATE    WITH 

THOSE  churches;  but  he  cannot  lawfully  subscribe  or 
profess  the  creed  of  Pius  IV.,  for  the  following  reasons. 
First,  this  creed  is  proposed  to  him  as  a  heretic.  It  is  de- 
signed to  exact  from  him  a  condemnation  of  his  own  Church, 
and  this  he  could  not  pronounce  with  truth.  Secondly, 
the  Roman  Church,  in  exacting  the  profession  of  this  creed, 
evidently  expects  an  explicit  profession,  after  examination, 
for  otherwise  she  would  only  have  required  a  general  ad- 
hesion to  all  her  doctrines.  But  this  cannot  be  made  con- 
sistently with  truth,  for  several  of  the  doctrines  of  this 
creed  are  disputed  and  erroneous,"  &c.  Now  Mr.  Palmer 
assigns  no  other  reason  than  these  two,  why  an  Englishman 
proposing  to  commune  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  should 
refuse  to  subscribe  the  creed  of  Pius  IV.  If,  therefore,  he 
were  told,  that  as  his  own  Church  was  not  mentioned  in 
that  formulary,  he  was  under  no  obligation   to  apply  the 


52 

anathema  to  her,  the  first  argument  would  lose  its  force; 
and  if  he  were  assured  that  he  was  not  required  to  make 
any  examination,  but  that  a  general  adhesionio  the  doctrines 
of  that  creed  would  perfectly  satisfy  the  Roman  priesthood, 
the  second  argument  would  be  set  aside  with  equal  facility. 
But  suppose,  what  undoubtedly  would  be  the  fact,  in  a 
majorit}'  of  instances,  that  the  priest  should  receive  the  Eng- 
lish Protestant  to  communion  in  the  most  accommodating 
spirit,  and,  for  the  sake  of  securing  a  future  proselyte,  or, 
at  least,  of  weakening  the  English  Church  by  the  appearance 
of  disaffection,  should  consent  to  waive  the  subscription  of 
the  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  altogether.  In  such  a  case  Mr. 
Palmer's  law  of  unity  requires  that   the  English 

PROTESTANT  SHOULD  BE   WILLING  TO  COMMUNE   WITH  THE 

ROMAN  CHURCHES,  in  Italy,  Spain,  or  any  other  country 
where  they  are  free  from  schism.  Our  author,  therefore, 
would  condemn  the  communing  with  Rome  in  England. 
He  would  also  condemn  the  communing  with  her  in  the 
United  States,  as  they  were  constituted  before  the  pur- 
chase of  Louisiana.  But  his  law  of  unity  requires  our 
willingness  to  commune  with  Rome,  (if  she  will  excuse 
our  subscribing  to  the  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.)  in  every 
part  of  the  world  where  that  Church  has  had  a  previous  and 
regular  possession.  And  therefore  we  are  bound  to  exhibit 
this  willingness,  in  all  those  states  of  the  Union  which  have 
been  formed  out  of  tiie  old  province  of  Louisiana,  as  pur- 
chased from  the  French  under  the  administration  of  Jeffer- 
son; in  the  Floridas,  in  the  Canadas,  in  the  Philippine  Is- 
lands, in  South  America,  in  many  parts  of  the  East  Indies, 
throughout  the  continent  of  Europe  in  general,  in  a  word, 
wherever  Rome  has  had  a  prior  peaceable  possession:  for 
the  question  of  communion  with  Rome,  according  to  this 
system,  is  made  to  depend,  not,  as  hitherto,  upon  her  re- 
forming her  dangerous  and  unchristian  doctrines,  but  on 
the  ground  of  a  legal  riglit,  to  be  determined  by  geogra- 


53 

PHICAL  LINES  AND  DATES  OP  SETTLEMENT!       And    this    ig 

the  principle  which,  in  the  opinion  of  son:ie  of  our  beloved 
and  respected  brethren,  deserves  to  be  received  amongst  us 
with  the  most  absolute  confidence  and  even  fervent  admi- 
ration! 

This  astounding  law  of  unity,  however,  is  far  from  in- 
cluding the  whole  practical  results  of  Mr.  Palmer's  eccle- 
siastical polity;  since  he  maintains  that  no  one  has  a  right 
to  establish  rival  communities,  where  the  Church  of  Rome 
has  acquired  a  quiet  prior  possession.  Rival  communi- 
ties! not  CHURCHES,  because  the  Author's  principles  oblige 
him  to  consider  these  communities  as  schismatics,  and  there- 
fore ''  separated  from  the  true  Church."  Hence  he  finds  him- 
self obliged  to  devise  an  excuse  for  the  Church  of  England 
in  Canada,  &c.  by  informing  us  that  ''the  arrangement  is 
only  provisional  in  a  certain  measure,  and  not  designed  to  in- 
terfere with  the  prior  claims  of  the  Roman  Churches  there,  tcith- 
in  their  proper  districts."  It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  our 
own  branch  of  the  Church  stands  in  precisely  the  same  at- 
titude throughout  the  whole  valle}^  of  the  Mississippi.  And 
therefore  the  information  here  given  to  us  is  a  matter  of 
very  serious  importance,  and  quite  unexpected,  I  may  safely 
say,  either  by  the  Church  of  England,  or  by  ourselves. 

The  British  Parliament  will  learn  from  this  new  school 
of  theology,  that  in  legislating  for  the  establishment  and 
maintenance  of  bishops  and  Churches  throughout  the  Cana- 
das,  &c.,  they  have  only  been  making  a  provisional  arrana-e- 
ment;  and  the  proviso  is,  that  there  shall  be  no  interference 
with  the  prior  claims  of  the  Roman  Churches,  within  their 
proper  districts.  But  it  unfortunately  happens  that  t!ie  whole 
of  these  countries  are  the  proper  districts  covered  by  the 
prior  claims  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  A  nd  I  am  quite  at  a 
loss  to  conceive  how  the  Parliament  of  England  could  '  m- 
ier/ere' with  these  prior  claims  more  effectually,  than  by 
sending  their  bishops,  and  erecting  Cathedrals,  and  sustain- 
6 


54 

ing  missionaries  in  every  city,  and  throughout  the  whole 
land,  for  the  express  purpose  of  proclaiming  the  Gospel  of 
Christ  in  its  Protestant  aspect  as  opposed  to  the  Church  of 
Rome.  It  is  indeed  said,  in  order  to  reconcile  this  mon- 
strous incongruity,  that  the  arrangement  was  properly  in- 
tended for  the  English  only,  and  even  of  necessity,  because 
tlie  Roman  Churches  refused  them  communion.  But  this 
statement,  to  my  mind,  is  totally  incomprehensible.  For 
surely  it  must  be  manifest  to  any  ordinary  understanding, 
that  those  Roman  Churches  would  have  rejoiced  to  extend 
their  communion  to  every  Englishman  in  Canada,  on  the 
easiest  possible  terms,  sooner  than  have  an  English  esta- 
blishment planted  amongst  them.  The  difficulty  was  alto- 
gether of  another  character.  The  British  nation  had  not 
then  been  asked  to  believe,  that  the  law  of  unity  required 
an  English  Protestant,  resident  in  a  popish  country,  to  de- 
sire communion  with  the  Church  of  Rome.  For  want  of 
proper  knowledge,  therefore,  according  to  Mr.  Palmer's 
argument,  the  Parliament  of  England  committed  a  mani- 
fold absurdity.  They  passed  laws  for  a  'provisional'  ar- 
rangement, but  quite  forgot  the  Proviso!  They  did  the 
very  thing  which  most  directly  interfered  with  the  'prior 
rights^  of  the  Roman  Churches,  without  intending  to  in- 
terfere with  them  at  all!  They  established  bishops,  mis- 
sionarieSj  and  Churches,  in  the  proper  districts  of  the  Roman 
Churches,  merely  on  the  principle  of  necessity,  because  the 
Romish  priests  refused  to  give  the  communion  to  the  resi- 
dent English;  witliout  the  slightest  evidence  either  of  the 
refusal  or  of  the  nccessihj!  For  certain  it  is,  that  the  Parlia- 
ment itself  has  totally  omitted  the  reasons  which  Mr.  Pal- 
m.er  has  ventured  to  assign,  as  their  sole  justification,  as  if 
they  were  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  law  of  unity,  which 
would  have  saved  them  all  the  expense  and  trouble  of  their 
provincial  establishments.  But  can  any  one  seriously 
doubt,  that  in  those  days,  they  would  probably  have  thought 


55 

that  man  unworthy  of  the  name  of  an  English  Protestant, 
who  should  have  talked  of  a  law  of  unity,  requiring  him 
to  desire  communion  at  the  hands  of  Rome? 

If  the  Parliament  of  England,  however,  according  to 
Mr.  Palmer's  argument,  was  thus  far  astray,  it  is  perfectly 
obvious  that  the  Church  of  England  was  equally  blame- 
worthy. Her  "  Venerable  Society  for  the  Propagation 
of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,"  have  been  violating  the 
law  of  unity,  without  the  least  idea  of  their  transgression, 
making  vast  efforts,  and  expending  immense  sums,  in  what 
they  conceived  to  be  a  work  of  the  highest  Christian  duty, 
but  what — according  to  this  new  System  of  Theology — 
proves  to  be  nothing  better  than  the  establishment  of  schism. 
Her  bishops  in  the  provinces  where  the  Church  of  Rome 
had  prior  peaceable  possession,  have  been  committing  sin,  in 
the  very  labours  and  sacrifices  which  they  ignorantly  sup- 
posed to  be  acceptable.  They  were  -only  thinking  of  re- 
verencing the  holy  claims  of  divine  truth,  when  they  should 
have  been  paying  due  regard  to  the  prior  rights  of  Roman- 
ism. They  were  only  striving  to  gather  men  into  a  pure 
communion,  when  they  should  have  sent  them  first,  in 
obedience  to  the  law  of  unity,  to  ask  admission  to  the 
Communion  of  Rome.  They  were  acting  upon  the  old 
doctrine,  that  theological  truth  in  England  must  be  theolo- 
gical truth  every  where,  when  tiiey  should  have  known  the 
legal  consequence  of  prior  possession,  by  which  the  same 
Roman  Communion  which  it  was  a  duty  to  denounce  at 
home,  it  was  equally  a  duty  to  seek  abroad,  since  the  grace 
of  the  sacrament  depended  on  the  district  in  which  it  was 
administered,  and  therefore  the  wrong,  in  England,  became 
the  right,  in  Canada! 

No  wonder,  truly,  that  our  own  Church  has  gotten  h^ 
self  involved  in  the  same  difficulty,  according  to  the  max- 
ims of  this  novel  doctrine.  We  have  organized  dioceses, 
appointed  bishops,sent  missionaries,  and  erected  a  college,  in 


56 

the  very  midst  of  those  States,  in  which  the  Church  of 
Rome  had  peaceable  prior  possession,  under  the  same  pro- 
found ignorance  of  Mr.  Palmer's  ecclesiastical  system.  He 
tells  us  that  no  Romanist  ought  'voluntarily  to  leave  his 
Church,'  and,  therefore,  it  must  be  wrong  in  us  to  offer  ar- 
guments intended  to  convert  them.  He  further  lays  it 
down  in  the  most  positive  terms,  that  it  is  "  Inconsistent  with 
the  true  principles  of  Catholic  unity  for  any  branch  of  the 
Church  to  send  missionaries,  to  raise  a  rival  worship  and  seek 
for  converts  in  the  bosom  of  another."  So  that  we,  too,  are 
openly  and  directly  implicated  in  this  species  of  transgres- 
sion ;  our  supposed  works  of  piety  become  sin,  our  favourite 
good  is  all  converted  into  evil;  and  where  we  hoped,  that 
through  the  blessing  of  the  Almighty,  we  had  planted  true 
Churches  of  Christ,  in  the  midst  of  Roman  corruption,  we 
are  to  discover  that  we  have  only  organized  schismatical 
COMMUNITIES  which  are  altogether  separated  from  the  true 
Church  of  Christ.  Nor  is  even  this  the  whole  of  the  mis- 
chief which  we  have  effected.  For  our  author  assures  us, 
as  if  it  were  an  undoubted  Canon  of  ecclesiastical  polity, 
that '  schismatics  do  not  cease  to  be  so  by  a  mere  change  of 
country,'  and  hence,  the  same  rule  which  so  ingeniously 
proves  the  Roman  schismatics  of  England  to  be  still  schis- 
matics in  the  United  States,  has  a  far  more  extensive  and 
fatal  influence  upon  the  missionary  work  of  Protestants. 
We  not  only  plant  schismatical  'communities'  in  the  first 
instance,  but  all  who  belong  to  those  communities  continue 
schismatics  wherever  they  may  go,  and  from  generation  to 
generation !  And  as,  in  the  present  condition  of  the  world, 
the  numbers  and  superior  advantages  of  Rome  have  neces- 
sarily given  her  the  priority  throughout  the  whole  mis- 
^nary  field,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  Mr.  Palmer's  system, 
while  it  promises  to  have  a  useful  influence  against  the  Ro- 
man schism  in  England  and  the  United  States,  must  cer- 
tainly, in  almost  the  whole  world  besides,  annihilate  our 
own  claims  completely. 


But  I  am  exceedingly  sorry  to  say,  that  our  learned  and 
ingenious  auther's  idea  on  the  subject  of  this  Roman  schism, 
(with  which  some  of  my  beloved  and  respected  brethren 
have  been  so  much  pleased,  as  to  re-iterate  it  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  much  safer  arguments,)  appears  to  my  mind  nothing 
better  than  a  betrayal  of  the  whole  cause  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. Very  far,  indeed,  should  I  be  from  suspecting  Mr, 
Palmer  or  his  friends  of  the  sliglitest  consciousness  of  such 
a  result.  I  have  no  doubt  that  they  have  honestly  per- 
suaded themselves  to  confide  in  their  doctrine,  and  that 
many  others  are  induced  to  confide  in  it,  as  the  best  mode 
of  defending  the  reformers  of  our  mother  Church.  But 
just  as  little  do  I  doubt  the  perilous  insufficiency  of  their 
defence,  and  the  imminent  probability  that  a  consistent 
adoption  of  their  entire  system  would  eventually  bring  us 
all  under  the  law  of  unity,  which,  practically  considered, 
would  prove  to  be  only  a  more  agreeable  synonym  for  the 
LAW  OF  Rome. 

I  should  be  most  reluctant  to  make  so  serious  an  asser- 
tion as  this,  if  I  did  not  believe  that  I  could  prove  its  truth. 
Let  me,  then,  proceed  to  show  my  reasons,  and  then,  be- 
loved brethren,  if  you  think  them  insufficient,  I  shall  sub- 
mit to  be  condemned. 

Our  author  states,  very  fully,  the  objections  which  the 
Romanist  makes  against  the  English  reformation:  that  it 
was  effected  by  Henry  VIII.  in  revenge  for  the  refusal  of 
the  Pope  to  sanction  his  marriage  with  Anna  Boleyn:  that 
it  was  carried  by  false  arguments,  that  the  pope's  jurisdic- 
tion having  existed  since  the  foundation  of  Christianity  in 
England,  it  was  schismatical  to  remove  it,  and  that  the 
Church  of  England  then  separated  herself  from  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  from  Christian  unity.  ^ 

Now  the  only  answer  which  Mr.  Palmer  gives  to  the 
latter  allegation,  consists  of  an  absolute  and  unqualified  de- 
nial.    After  a  considerable  display  of  such  evidence  as  li§ 


58 

thinks  sufficient,  he  concludes  as  follows:  "It  is  evident 
tlien,  that  the  whole  separation  or  schism  was  originated 
and  effected  by  the  Roman  Pontiffs  and  their  adherents, 
not  by  the  Churches  among  us.  I  repeat  it,"  he  continues, 
"as  a  fact  which  ought  never  to  be  forgotten,  that  we 
DID  NOT  GO  OUT  FROM  THEM,  but,  as  the  apostle  says,  they 
WENT  OUT  FROM  US,  thus  bearing  what  is,  as  Bossuet  well 
observes,  the  invariable  mark  of  schism  and  heresy  in  every 
age;  Non  enim  nos  ab  illis,  sed  illi  a  nobis  recesserunt." 
(Vol.  I.  p.  458.) 

These  are  the  emphatical  words  of  our  author,  and  the 
capitals  are  also  his  own.  The  following  inference  appears 
to  my  mind  to  be  the  fair  and  inevitable  result. 

If  it  be  true  that  the  Church  of  England  has  never  sepa- 
rated from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  that  the  separation 
was  the  work  of  Rome  alone,  it  seems  manifest,  that  so  far 
as  the  Church  of  England  was  concerned,  she  would  have 
continued  in  communion  with  Rome  still,  and  of  course  would 
reneio  that  communion  now,  if  Rome  would  consent,  as  an  act 
of  Christian  duty,  on  the  same  principle  already  recom- 
mended by  our  author,  namely,  the  law  of  unity. 

Now  this,  to  me,  is  a  novel  and  alarming  proposition, 
even  when  it  concerns  only  a  private  member  of  our  com- 
munion: much  more  when  it  is  asserted  of  the  whole 
Church.  For  myself,  I  reject  it  with  all  my  heart,  as  to- 
tally and  positively  erroneous.  Mr.  Palmer's  evidence  is 
utterly  insufficient  to  establish  it,  because  it  consists  of  no- 
thing beyond  the  words  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  one  of  his  bi- 
shops, Tunstall.  But  it  is  notorious  that  the  English  refor- 
mation was  not  the  work  of  that  reign.  Henry  lived  and 
died  a  complete  Romanist  in  almost  every  thing,  save  the 
destruction  of  the  papal  supremacy  and  the  spoliation  of  the 
monasteries.  His  was  the  task  of  pulling  down  the  ram- 
parts which  guarded  the  citadel  of  superstition.  The 
cleansing  and  purifying  the  citadel  itself,  was  reserved  for 


59 

a  very  different  instrumentality,  namely,  that  of  the  bishops 
under  the  reign  of  his  son,  Edward  VI.,  an  acknowledged 
prodigy  of  youthful  piety  and  wisdom.  As  in  the  instance 
of  the  famous  temple  of  Jerusalem,  David  was  allowed  to 
prepare  the  materials,  but  because  he  had  been  'a  man  of 
wars'  the  building  of  the  sacred  edifice  was  committed  to 
his  successor  Solomon,  even  so  was  it  in  the  reformation  of 
the  English  Church,  to  be  the  resting  place  of  the  original 
sanctuary.  Henry's  office  was  to  prepare  the  ground  and 
the  materials;  it  was  Edward's  part  to  have  the  fabric  put 
together.  Nor  was  the  work  fully  accomplished  until  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth,  when  the  tiiirty-nine  Articles  and  the 
Homilies  completed  the  whole  design,  in  substantial  accor- 
dance with  the  primitive  pattern,  under  the  paramount  au- 
thority of  the  Word  of  God. 

In  distinct  contrariety,  therefore,  to  Mr.  Palmer's  em- 
phatic assertion,  I  must  maintain  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land did  separate  from  the  Church  of  Rome  by  the  act  of 
reformation:  that  although  that  separation  was  the  work  of 
the  Church  of  England,  yet  the  sin  and  the  responsibility 
rested  wholly  upon  the  Church  of  Rome:  that  while  the 
separation  was  indeed  consummated  in  defiance  of  the  laws 
of  the  papal  system,  it  was  nevertheless  in  conformity  to 
the  higher  laws  of  the  primitive  Church  universal,  and  in 
strict  accordance  with  the  divine  law  of  unity  declared  by 
our  Lord  himself;  and  that,  by  necessary  consequence,  no 
act  of  the  Church  of  Rome  could  bring  our  mother  Church 
or  ourselves  into  communion  with  her,  unless  the  corrup- 
tions of  her  unchristian  doctrines  were  first  done  away,  and  no 
member  of  our  Churches  could  seek  to  hold  communion 
with  her,  until  she  is  reformed,  without  a  virtual  condemning 
of  our  own  reformation. 

The  highest  evidence  of  the  judgment  of  our  mother 
Church  upon  these  points,  may  be  found  in  the  celebrated 
*  Apology'  of  Bishop  Jewel.     And  the  character  of  this 


60 

document  is  set  forth  with  equal  truth  and  ability  in  the 
preface,  published  in  the  third  volume  of  'The  Standard 
Works/  a  few  years  ago;  which,  (together  with  the  notes,) 
are  from  the  gifted  pen  of  the  present  Bishop  of  the  diocess 
of  Maryland.  Some  extracts  from  this  admirable  preface 
may  be  advisable,  in  order  to  justify  the  importance  which 
1  cannot  but  attribute  to  the  ''Apology,"  as  furnishing  con- 
clusive testimony  upon  the  subject  in  question. 

"Few  works,"  saith  the  learned  author  of  this  Preface, 
"possess  stronger  claims  to  regard  than  that  which  is  now 
introduced  to  the  American  public."  (sc.  Bishop  Jewel's 
Apology  for  the  Church  of  England.)  "Apart  from  its 
intrinsic  merits,  it  comes  down  to  us  from  the  golden  age 
of  the  reformation,  with  the  stamp  of  national  sanction  at 
the  time  of  its  publication,  and  recommended  by  the  undi- 
vided suffrages  of  the  learned  and  pious  of  every  intervening 
age.  It  is  the  production  of  an  individual,  it  is  true;  but 
that  individual  confessedly  pre-eminent  for  learning  and 
eloquence  in  a  learned  age,  and  expressing,  with  mature 
deliberation,  the  avowed  sense  of  all  his  brethren,  under 
their  revision,  and  with  their  unqualified  approbation.  It 
may,  therefore,  justly  pretend  to  all  the  consideration  due 
to  the  combined  wisdom,  learning,  and  piety  of  the  Church 
of  England  in  one  of  its  brightest  periods — the  age  of  the 
compilers  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer."  Elsewhere 
the  preface  states  that  the  work  was  published  as  "set  forth 
by  Queen  Elizabeth's  authority,"  and  appealed  to  as  "an 
authentic  statement  of  the  principles  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, offered  to  Christendom  by  that  Church  as  a  hostage  for 
Us  adherence  to  the  common  faith."  In  further  proof  of  its 
standard  excellence,  it  is  quoted  as  authority,  in  the  30th 
canon  of  the  English  Church. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  witness,  in  every  way  unexcep- 
tionable: living  at  the  time,  appointed  for  the  purpose,  the 
accredited  representative  of  the  whole  Church  of  England; 


6t 

and  his  work  acknowledged  and  approved  by  the  Church, 
the  sovereign,  and  the  nation.  I  shall  proceed  to  quote  his 
testimony,  therefore,  as  absolute  and  final  upon  the  ques- 
tion. Whether,  in  the  act  of  reformation,  the  Church  of 
England  proclaimed  herself  to  have  separated  from  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  for  what  cause? 

In  the  13th  chapter  of  this  masterly  work,  under  the 
head  of  the  "Grounds  of  the  Reformation,"  (Am.  ed.  p. 
229,)  we  read  as  follows: 

"Verily,  we  for  our  parts,  as  we  have  said,  have  done 
nothing  in  altering  religion,  upon  either  rashness,  or  arro- 
gancy:  nor  nothing,  but  with  good  leisure,  and  great  con- 
sideration. Neither  had  we  ever  intended  to  do  it,  except 
both  the  manifest  and  most  assured  Will  of  God,  opened 
to  us  in  his  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the  regard  of  our  own  sal- 
vation, had  even  constrained  us  thereunto.  For  though  we 
have  departed  from  that  Church  which  these  men  call  Catholic, 
and  by  that  means  get  us  envy  amongst  them  that  want 
skill  to  judge;  yet  is  this  enough  for  us — and  it  ought  to 
be  enough  for  every  wise  and  good  man,  and  one  that 
maketh  account  of  everlasting  life — that  we  have  gone  from 
that  Church  which  hath  power  to  err;  which  Christ,  who 
cannot  err,  told,  so  long  before,  that  it  should  err;  and 
which  we  ourselves  did  evidently  see  with  our  eyes  to  have 
gone  from  the  old  holy  fathers,  and  from  the  apostles,  and 
from  Christ  himself,  and  from  the  primitive  and  Catholic 
Church  of  God:  and  we  are  come,  as  near  as  we  possibly 
could,  to  the  Church  of  the  apostles  and  of  the  old  Catholic 
bishops  and  fathers — which  Church,  we  know,  was  sound  and 
perfect,  and  asTertuUian  termeth  it,  'a  pure  virgin,'  spotted 
as  then  with  no  idolatry,  nor  with  any  foul  and  shameful 
fault. 

Again,  (p.  186)  our  author,  in  the  name  of  the  Church 
of  England,  saith,  "  Indeed  we  have  renounced  that  Church, 
wherein  we  could  neither  have  the  word  of  God  sincerely 


63 

taught,  nor  the  sacraments  rightly  administered,  nor  the 
name  of  God  duly  called  upon:  which  Church  also  them- 
selves confess  to  be  faulty  in  many  points;  and  wherein  was 
nothing  able  to  stay  any  wise  man,  or  one  that  hath  con- 
sideration of  his  own  safety.  To  conclude,  we  have  forsaken 
the  Church  as  it  is  now,  not  as  it  was  in  old  times  past;  and 
have  so  gone  from  it,  as  Daniel  went  out  of  the  lion's  den, 
and  the  three  children  out  of  the  furnace:  and  to  say  the 
truth,  we  have  been  cast  out  by  these  men  (being  cursed 
of  them,  as  they  use  to  say,  with  book,  bell,  and  candle) 
rather  than  have  gone  away  from  them  of  ourselves.  And 
we  are  come  to  that  Church,  wherein  they  themselves  cannot 
deny,  (if  they  will  say  truly,  and  as  they  think  in  their 
own  conscience,)  but  all  things  be  governed  purely  and  re- 
verently, and,  as  much  as  we  possibly  could,  very  near  to 
the  order  used  in  old  times.  Let  them  compare  our  Church 
and  theirs  together,  and  they  shall  see,  that  themselves 
have  most  shamefully  gone  from  the  apostles,  and  we  most 
justly  have  gone  from  them.'^ 

Again,  (p,  254)  "We  so  have  gotten  ourselves  away  from 
that  Church  which  they  had  made  a  den  of  thieves,  and 
wherein  nothing  was  in  good  frame,  or  once  like  to  the 
Church  of  God,  even  as  Lot  in  times  past  got  him  out  of 
Sodom,  or  Abraham  out  of  Chaldea,  not  upon  a  desire  of 
contention,  but  by  the  warning  of  God  liimself:  and  we 
have  searched  out  of  the  Holy  Bible,  which  we  are  sure 
cannot  deceive  us,  one  sure  form  of  religion;  and  have  re- 
turned again  unto  the  primitive  Church  of  the  ancient  fathers 
and  apostles." 

Once  more,  our  Author  uses,  towards  the  close  of  his 
defence,  (p.  255)  the  following  just  and  pertinent  language. 
"Neither  do  we  eschew  concord  and  peace.  But  to  have 
peace  with  man,  we  may  not  be  at  war  with  God.  '  The 
name  of  peace  is  a  sweet  and  pleasant  thing,'  saith  Hilary; 
<  but  yet  beware,'  saith  he;  'peace  is  one  thing,  and  bondage 


63 

is  another.'  For  if  it  should  be  so,  as  they  seek  to  have  it, 
that  Christ  should  be  commanded  to  keep  silence,  that  the 
truth  of  the  Gospel  should  be  betrayed,  that  horrible  errors 
should  be  cloaked,  that  Christian  men's  eyes  should  be 
bleared,  and  that  they  might  be  suffered  to  conspire  openly 
against  God,  this  were  notapeace,  but  a  most  ungodly  cove- 
nant of  servitude.  'There  is  a  j)eace,'  said  Nazianzen,  'that 
is  unprofitable:  there  is  a  discord  that  is  profitable.'  For 
we  must  conditionally  desire  peace,  so  far  as  is  lawful  before 
God  and  so  far  as  we  may  conveniently.  For  otherwise 
Christ  himself  brought  not  peace  into  the  world,  but  a 
sword.  Wherefore,  if  the  Pope  will  have  us  to  be  recon- 
ciled unto  him,  his  duty  is  first  to  be  reconciled  to  God." 
Now  with  this  plain,  positive  and  re-iterated  evidence 
before  my  eyes,  1  must  acknowledge  myself  totally  unable 
to  admit  the  assertion  of  Mr.  Palmer,  where  he  saith,  (vol- 
1,  p.  445,)  "  It  is  obvious  that  the  sole  intention^'  (sc.  of  the 
Reformation,)  "  was  to  suppress  the  novel  and  usurped  ju- 
risdiction of  the  Roman  bishop,  not  to  separate  from  his  com- 
munion or  from  that  of  the  Western  Churches."  I  willingly 
grant,  indeed,  that  Henry  VIII,  may  have  adopted  this 
limited  notion  of  the  matter  at  the  beginning;  but  we  should 
deal  most  unfairly  by  the  real  Reformers  of  our  mother 
Church,  in  judging  their  work  by  his  intentions.  Looking 
at  the  whole  as  it  stood  after  the  reign  of  the  persecuting 
Mary,  when  the  liturgy  was  revised,  the  39  Articles  adopt- 
ed, the  apology  of  Bishop  Jewel  put  forth  as  the  open  and 
authoritative  statement  of  the  Church  of  England — for  this 
is  the  form  in  which  it  has  properly  descended  to  our  day — 
there  was,  and  there  could  have  been  no  possible  commu- 
nion between  that  Church  and  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  is 
very  true,  as  Mr.  Palmer  remarks,  that  our  mother  Church 
published  no  anathemas  against  her  adversary.  Surely, 
however,  this  affords  no  proof  of  her  desire  of  communion, 
since,  (thank  God!)  she  pronounced  no  curses  against  any. 


64 

That  awful  assumption  she  left  to  the  Pope  and  his  Council 
of  Trent,  where  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  twenty-six 
'of  these  terrible  maledictions  were  solemnly  recorded;  in 
agreement,  truly,  with  abundance  of  ancient  precedents, 
but  in  total  abandonment  of  the  higher  rule  of  scripture, 
*  BLESS  AND  CURSE  NOT,'  which  our  mothcr  Church  most 
wisely  resolved  to  follow.  Nor  did  the  primitive  Church 
set  any  other  example,  since  it  is  certain  that  she  pronounced 
no  anathemas  except  when  men  presumed  to  deny  the  very 
foundations  of  the  Christian  faith,  in  those  articles  which 
concerned  the  doctrine  of  the  blessed  Trinity  and  the  Per- 
son of  our  Lord  and  Saviour.* 

*  It  is  worthy  of  observation,  however,  that  our  learned  author  him- 
self furnishes  an  unanswerable  argument  against  his  view  of  this  im- 
portant question;  for  in  the  account  he  gives  of  the  Jansenists  of  Holland, 
he  tells  us  (vol.  1.  p.  339)  that  "  they  alone  seem  to  be  out  of  the  Com- 
munion of  the  Roman  Church,  but  they  exhibit  every  wish  to  be  con- 
nected with  it,  and  profess  themselves  some  of  its  best  members 

They  always  pretend  to  be  united  with  the  Roman  Church,"  saith  he  on 
the  next  page,  "  duly  informing  the  Pontiff  of  their  elections,  &c.,  in  a 
most  fraternal  manner,  and  occasionally  addressing  epistles  to  him;  to 
all  whicli  they  receive  no  other  reply  than  bulls  of  excommunication, 
deposition,  censure,  &c  ,  which  they  do  not  seem  much  to  regard."  On 
page  320  he  clearly  proves  that  Jansenism  is  held  by  the  Roman  Church 
to  be  a  damnable  heresy,  and  yet  saith  he,  "  notwithstanding  all  this,  it 
is  a  matter  of  absolute  certainty  that  this  very  Jansenist  heresy  has,  in 
opposition  to  all  these  anathemas  and  condemnations,  and  in  spite  of  the 
persecution  of  the  temporal  powers,  continued  to  exist  for  nearly  two 
hundred  years,  and  what  is  more,  that  it  has  existed  all  along  in  the 
very  heart  of  the  Church  of  Rome  itself" 

Now  here  is  a  fair  example  of  a  case  where  men,  professing  to  be  re- 
formers in  principle,  and  really  much  purer  in  their  doctrines  than  the 
Roman  Church,  refuse  to  be  cast  off  in  spite  of  all  that  she  can  say  and 
do  to  the  contrary.  Of  such  as  these  it  is  consistent  to  say  that  they 
never  separated  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  since  even  in  Holland,  where 
they  are  actually  out  of  her  communion,  they  do  every  thing  in  their 
power  to  show  that  they  desire  to  maintain  a  fraternal  intercourse.  But 
when  has  the  Church  of  England  shown  this  desire.'  What  fraternal 
intercourse  has  she  attempted.'  What  indication,  however  slight,  has 
ever  escaped  her  to  prove  Mr.  Palmer's  assertion  that  she  never  intended 


65 

In  this  point,  therefore,  as  I  apprehend,  lies  the  incura- 
ble vice  of  the  defence,  learned,  elaborate,  and  ingenious  as 
it  otherwise  is,  which  Mr.  Palmer  sets  forth  in  behalf  of 
the  British  Reformation.  For  on  his  principles  of  Catho- 
lic unity  the  question  immediately  arises.  Why  talk  of  a 
Reformation  at  all  ?  If  the  only  difficulty,  as  he  maintains, 
consisted  in  the  usurped  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope,  why  did 
not  our  mother  Church  stop  at  that  point,  with  Henry 
VIII?  Why  did  her  Reformers  attack  every  other  corrup- 
tion, Ihe  idolatrous  worship  of  the  Virgin  and  the  saints, 
of  relics,  images,  crosses;  the  priestly  tribunal  of  auricular 
confession,  absolution,  and  penance;  works  of  supereroga- 
tion, pardons  and  indulgences;  clerical  celibacy,  with  its 
attendant  licentiousness;  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments, 
with  their  perilous  principle  of  grace  ex  opere  operato;  the 
communion  in  one  kind,  with  its  correlative  impieties  in 
the  Sacrament  of  the  altar;  and,  above  all,  that  most  dan- 
gerous notion  of  reliance  on  the  merit  of  man's  works, 
and  his  own  inherent  righteousness,  which  had  superseded 
the  Scriptural  and  primitive  justification  by  faith?  Are 
we  supposed  to  have  forgotten  that  Henry  VIII.  made 
no  difficulty  about  any  of  these  grave  subjects,  on  which 
our  Articles  are  so  clear  and   definite?*     Has  IVIr.  Palmer 

to  leave  the  communion  of  the  pope?  Surely  it  is  wonderful  that  this 
learned  writer  should  not  have  been  convinced  of  the  contrast,  thus  un- 
consciously recorded  by  his  own  pen,  between  those  Jansenist  reformers 
who  are  determined  to  cling  to  Rome,  and  those  English  reformers  who 
at  once  resolved,  in  the  words  of  Jewel,  to  "renounce  "  her.  Whenever 
he  finds  our  Mother  Church,  or  our  own,  acting  like  the  Jansenist 
Church  of  Holland,  duly  informing  the  pontiff  of  their  elections,  &c.  in  a 
most  fraternal  maimer, and  occasionally  addressing  epistles  to  him,  or  doing 
any  thing  else  which  comes  within  the  established  rules  for  the  com- 
munion of  churches,  it  will  be  time  enough  for  him  to  proclaim  his  hy- 
pothesis as  a  matter  of  fact.  But  until  then,  I  cannot  but  consider  it  a 
most  unfounded  and  unjust  imputation. 

*  I  design  to  take  up  Mr.  Palmer's  notions  of  the  Reformation  effected 
by  Henry  VIII.  in  my  next  letter. 
7 


68 

himself  forgotten  that  the  favourite  test  questions  which 
the  Romanists,  in  the  days  of  Queen  Mary,  used  in  order 
to  convict  the  Reformers  of  heresy,  turned  on  these  points, 
and  chiefly  on  the  gross  corruption  of  Transubslantialion? 
And  can  he  really  persuade  himself,  that  those  holy  men 
who  abjured  the  tenets  of  Romanism  in  the  fires  of  Smith- 
field  and  Oxford  itself,  were  all  the  time  disposed  to  com- 
mune WITH  Rome,  without  regard  to  any  of  her  most 
false  and  dangerous  doctrines,  if  only  the  usurped  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Pope  over  the  Church  of  England  were  done 
away  ? 

Utterly  erroneous,  therefore, — utterly  ineffectual,  do  I 
consider  the  mode  of  defending  the  Reformation  which 
has  come  amongst  us  in  this  novel  guise;  although  it  be, 
indeed,  worked  up  into  a  specious,  and,  in  some  respects,  a 
highly  imposing  system.  Its  central  principle,  the  duty  of 
ecclesiastical  unity,  and  the  destructive  effects  of  schism, 
are  stated  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  be  easily  turned  to  the 
service  of  Rome  and  against  the  Church  of  England.  For 
it  is  impossible  to  deny,  that  the  whole  system  of  Popery 
had  gained  tlie  ascendancy  in  England  for  centuries  before 
the  Reformation,  and  that  all  the  prelates  of  the  Church 
were  bound  to  the  Pope  by  the  most  solemn  vows  of 
ecclesiastical  obligation.  Granting,  then,  that  the  Popedom 
was  an  usurpation,  as  it  assuredly  was,  yet  no  reflecting 
Christian,  steadfastly  regarding  the  strife,  the  wars,  the 
persecutions,  the  martyrdoms,  and  the  endless  dissensions 
which  the  Reformation  necessarily  brought  along  with  it, 
could  have  thought  himself  justified  in  urging  such  a  mea- 
sure, if  the  evil  had  been  nothing  worse  than  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  foreign  pontiff".  But  when  the  eyes  of  the 
Reformers  were  opened  to  the  true  issue  between  the  Re- 
ligion of  God,  and  the  Religion  of  man, — "when,"  to  use 
the  language  of  Bishop  Jewel,  the  state  of  the  Church  was 
such,  that  "Christ  must  keep  silence,  and  the  truth  of  the 


67 

Gospel  be  betra)7ed,  and  horrible  errors  be  cloaked,  and 
Christian  men's  eyes  be  bleared,  and  a  conspiracy  against 
God  be  openly  carried  on,"  and  all  this  in  the  very  name  of 
Christ  himself,  and  under  the  seal  of  his  abused  authority, 
— then  was  the  cause  of  the  Reformation  identified  with  the 
supremacy  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  eternal  hopes  of  the 
world;  and  the  blessed  instruments  who  were  strengthened 
to  become  its  champions  went  forth  to  the  work,  under  the 
full  power  of  the  conviction  that  the  Church  of  Rome  was 
the  seat  of  Antichrist.    Not  that  by  this  term  they  denied 
her  to  be,  in  a  certain  sense,  a  true  Church.    She  was  apos- 
tolic in  her  foundation,  sound  in  her  ancient  creeds  which 
she  had  never  cast  away,  and  regular  in  the  succession  of 
her  ministry.    Planted  in  the  truth  as  the  spouse  of  Christ 
in  the  beginning,  she  remained  his  spouse  still,  by  the  old 
covenant  of  her  first  profession.     But  she  had  become  an 
adulteress,  the  mother  of  harlots,  in  their  esteem;  and  just 
as  a  wife,  the  most  devoted  of  friends  while  faithful,  be- 
comes  the  most  dangerous  of  enemies  when  her  aflfections 
are  transferred   to   another,  so,  in  the  judgment  of  those 
glorious  men,  the  Church  of  Rome  was  at  the  same  time 
the  spouse  of  Christ  by  her  original  faith,  and  the  worst 
enemy  of  Christ  by  her  idolatry,  her   man-worship,  her 
indulgences,  her   superstitions,  her    licentiousness.      And 
as  no  honest  man  who  felt  himself  called  upon  to  expose 
the  crimes  of  an  adulteress,  could  possibly  sit  down  with 
her  in  brotherly  communion  at  the  same  table,  without 
forfeiting  his  own  character  for  sincerity  and  consistency 
for  ever,  so,  and  much  more,  are  we  sure  that  the  Reform- 
ers, divinely  raised  up  for  the  exposure  of  tlie  multiplied 
spiritual  adulteries  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  must  have  re- 
volted from  the  idea  of  remaining  in  communion  with  her, 
as  from  an  act  of  open  treason  against  the  majesty  of  God, 
and  the  honour  of  their  Redeemer. 

The  duty  of  unity  with  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  they 
understood  most  thoroughly,  and  they  practised  upon  thS 


68 

theory  of  that  unity,  as  they  saw  it  laid  down  by  the  only 
infallible  authority  of  Scripture.     That  was  the  principle 
of  the  Church's  unity  which  bound  the  body  to  the  Head; 
— not  the  visible  head  which  had  become  established  by 
the  successful  ambition  of  the  Popedom,  but  the  invisible 
Head  which  had  declared;  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world. 
They  knew  well  that  the  only  unity  which  their  Lord  had 
commanded  was  that  of  which  he  spake,  when,  addressing 
his  Father,  according  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  (Ch.  xvii. 
20,)  he  said,  "Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them 
also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through   their  word;  that 
they  all  may  be  one;  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in 
thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us:  that  the  world  may 
believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me."    The  unity  here  set  forth 
was  unity  in  the  blessed  Trinity,  unity  in  Christ,  unity  in 
the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life;  in  a  word,  the  unity  of  a 
living  faith  in  the  everlasting  Gospel.     But  the  Church  of 
Rome  had  destroyed  this  unity  herself,  by  making  void 
the  word  of  God  that  she  might  keep  her  own  traditions; 
and  the  very  reason  why  the  Reformers  left  their  commu- 
nion with  the  Pope,  was  because  they  could  not  otherwise 
secure  their  communion   with  the  Saviour.     They  acted, 
therefore,  in  strict  accordance  with  the  duty  of  spiritual 
unity,  when  they  applied  to  their  position  with  respect  to 
Rome,  the  language  of  Isaiah:  (Hi.  11.)  *^  Depart  ye,  depart 
ye,  go  ye  out  from  thence,  touch  no  unclean  thing;  go  ye  out 
of  the  midst  of  her;  be  ye  clean,  that  bear  the  vessels  of 
the  Lord."    Or  the  still  stronger  warning  of  the  Book  of 
Revelation,  (xviii.  4.)  "  Come  out  of  her,  my  people,  that 
ye  be  not  partakers  of  her  sins." 

Surely,  then,  beloved  brethren,  I  cannot  err  in  pro- 
nouncing this  new  system  of  ecclesiastical  polity  to  be 
utterly  foreign  to  the  principles,  and  hostile  to  the  spirit 
of  the  English  Reformation.  Set  the  Church  of  Rome 
upon  the  one  side,  and  the  Church  of  Luther,  Zuinglius, 
or  Calvin  upon  the  other,  and  bt  our  martyred  Reformers 


69 

be  supposed  to  answer  the  question:  On  wMch  side  is  the 
Church  of  Christ  which  you  hold  to  be  the  purest,  the  safest, 
the  best  entitled  to  the  name  of  his  spouse  and  his  bod}', 
and  with  which  would  you  prefer  to  east  in  your  lot,  if  you 
were  compelled  to  choose  between  them?  And  is  it  pos- 
sible for  any  Protestant  Episcopalian  to  doubt  what  would 
be  the  reply?  Or  imagine  that  the  dioceses  of  our  Mother 
Church  were  now  filled  with  the  same  men  who  shone  in 
the  days  of  Edward  VI.,  and  embraced  the  stake  sooner 
than  unity  with  Rome,  in  the  reign  of  Mar)';  or  with  their 
like-minded  and  true-hearted  successors,  when  the  eloquent 
pen  of  Jeivel  set  forth  the '' Apology  for  the  Church  of 
England"  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth;  and  what  can  we 
suppose  would  be  tiieir  judgment  on  Mr.  Palmer's  system.? 
How  would  Ihey  regard  his  statements  concerning  the  es- 
sential attributes  of  the  Church,  and  the  laiv  of  unity,  and 
the  provisional  establishment  of  the  English  FJpiscopate  in 
Canada,  and  the  sin  of  interfering  with  the  prior  rights  of 
Rome,  and  the  duty  of  an  English  Churchman  to  commune 
with  her,  if  resident  in  any  part  of  the  world  where  she  had 
peaceably  gained  the  first  possession?  But  truly  our  Ox- 
ford brethren  have  answered  these  questions  indirectly  al- 
ready, by  their  frequent  efibrts  to  disparage  the  work  and 
the  character  of  the  Reformers.  They  are  too  learned  and 
loo  acute  to  suppose,  that  we  can  cordiallj'  maintain  the  old 
standards  of  English  theology,  in  harmony  with  their  novel 
doctrine.  I  thank  God,  however,  that  the  successors  of  the 
Reformers,  the  English  bishops  of  our  own  day,  have  given 
no  other  judgment,  as  yet;  but  have  faithfully  preserved, 
in  conjunction  with  the  prelates  of  the  Irish  Church,  the 
precious  legacy  of  Gospel  truth,  which  was  dyed  in  tlic 
blood  of  their  fathers.*     The  same,  I  feel  confident,  is  the 

*  It  gives  me  pleasure  to  refer  to  the  late  sermons  of  the  Bishop  of 
London,  the  Charges  of  the  Bishop  of  Chester,  Winchester,  Llandaft' 
and  Salisbury,  and  the  elaborate  Cliarge  of  the  Bishop  of  Ossorj. 

7* 


70 

settled  sentiment  amongst  ourselves;  for  however  the  learn- 
ing, the  talent,  and  the  ingenuity  of  our  Oxford  brethren, 
have  combined  w^ith  their  personal  worth  and  the  peculiar 
character  of  the  age,  to  give  their  novel  opinions  a  certain 
influence  for  a  season,  it  is  impossible  to  reflect  upon  them 
long  and  candidly  without  a  perfect  conviction,  that  they 
belong,  in  their  origin,  to  the  system  of  Rome,  and  must 
operate,  so  far  as  they  are  received,  against  the  true  spirit 
of  the  Reformation. 

But  while  I  am  thus  compelled,  with  sorrow  and  regret, 
to  point  out  the  erroneous  tendencies  of  this  novel  system, 
and  to  vindicate  the  old  distinction  between  the  essence  of 
the  Church,  which  is  its  faith,  and  the  order  of  the  Church, 
which  includes  its  ministry,  I  beg  to  be  distinctly  under- 
stood as  intending  neither  to  conceal  nor  to  palliate  the  sin 
OF  SCHISM,  of  which  all  are  guilty,  to  a  greater  or  a  less  de- 
gree, who  needlessly  originate,  or  knowingly  defend,  a  de- 
parture from  the  rule  of  apostolic  unity.  Such  men  destroy 
the  concord  for  which  the  Redeemer  prayed  to  his  Father. 
They  advocate  the  fearful  work  of  dissension  and  strife  in 
the  Church  universal,  which  ought  to  be  at  peace  within 
itself,  if  only  that  it  may  conduct,  with  full  assurance  of 
victory,  the  sacred  warfare  against  a  world  that  lieth  in 
wickedness.  Therefore  it  can  only  be  on  grounds  of  the 
most  solemn  importance  to  the  integrity  of  the  faith  itself, 
that  the  evils  of  separation  can  ever  be  justified.  Such  was 
the  case  of  the  blessed  Reformation,  It  was  not  the  usurpa- 
tion of  the  pope,  nor  his  unlawful  power  of  appeals  and  dis- 
pensations, nor  his  tribute  money  in  the  shape  of  Peter  pence, 
and  other  exactions,  nay,  nor  even  his  pretended  right  to 
dispose  of  crowns  and  sceptres,  which  would,  in  my  mind, 
have  justified  the  attempt  to  break  his  despotic  yoke,  after 
the  acquiescence  of  centuries  had  fastened  it  upon  the  con- 
tented necks  of  millions.  It  was  the  corruption  of  the  faith 
of  the  gospel,  by  leading  the  Church  of  God  to  worship  the 


71 

Virgin  Mary  as  the  queen  of  heaven,  and  a  mediatrix  more 
merciful  than  Jesus  Christ;  to  bow  down  before  a  host  of 
inferior  saints  who  occupied  the  foreground  of  the  thoughts 
and  the  confidence  of  Christians;  to  trust  in  the  official 
work  of  the  priesthood, — absolution,  indulgences,  penances, 
sacraments, — more  than  in  judgment,  mercy  and  faith;  to 
look  to  the  priest  for  all  spiritual  knowledge,  in  total  negli- 
gence of  the  written  Word  of  God;  to  exalt  the  Church 
and  the  pope,  in  practical  effect,  above  their  Lord  and  Mas- 
ter; to  claim  for  them  the  infallibility  which  properly  be- 
longs to  Deity  alone;  to  bestow  on  human  righteousness 
the  merits  of  the  Saviour's  cross  and  passion;  to  magnify  a 
false  and  superstitious  sanctity,  composed  of  outward  acts 
of  bodily  suffering,  above  the  works  of  true  faith ;  in  a  word, 
to  bring  down  the  majesty  of  the  glorious  Redeemer;  and 
place  his  mercies  and  rewards  at  the  disposal  of  the  saints, 
in  perfect  accordance  with  the  idea  of  their  favourite  pic- 
tures, where  Christ  is  set  forth,  surrounded  by  the  hosts  of 
heaven,  but  in  the  form  of  a  child  in  the  arms  of  the  Virgin, 
while  the  deluded  worshippers  are  taught  to  pray  to  her, 
that  she  may  use  over  him  the  authority  of  a  Mother! 

These,  and  things  like  these,  not  only  justified,  but  loudly 
demanded  an  abandonment  of  that  corrupt  Ciiurch,  because 
they  poisoned  the  very  fountains  of  truth,  and  infected 
every  rank  and  order  in  the  Christian  Commonwealth.  It 
was  no  contemptible  anxiety  to  save  their  j)ence;  it  was  no 
miserable  struggle  whether  the  king  or  the  pope  should  be 
supreme,  which  enabled  the  reformers  to  bring  the  question 
of  the  Reformation  home  to  the  consciences  of  the  people. 
Neither  was  it,  amongst  the  divines  of  that  age,  any  of  the 
paltry  and  puerile  strifes  which  have  since  been  thought 
sufficient  to  authorize  an  open  breach  amongst  the  professed 
followers  of  the  Prince  of  peace;  when  a  linen  surplice,  or 
a  prayer-book,  or  the  name  of  a  bishop,  was  made  a  plenary 
justification  for  the  awful  evils  of  hatred  amongst  brethren. 


72 

And  hence,  while  I  maintain  that  the  essence  of  the  Church 
may  remain  amongst  the  worst  schismatics,  so  long  as  they 
hold  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  failh, — while  I  deny 
that  their  schism,  howev^er  causeless,  destroys  their  being 
as  a  portion  of  the  Church  universal — while  I  consider  that 
my  argument  is  sustained  by  the  Scriptures;  that  the  pri- 
mitive Church  held  the  same  subslanlial  views,  (as  may  be 
plainly  proved,  especially,  by  their  conduct  towards  the 
Donatists,)  and  that  they  are,  moreover,  in  accordance  with 
the  best  school  of  English  theology — yet  God  forbid  that 
I  should  be  supposed  to  defend,  or  in  anywise  extenuate, 
the  sin  0/ SCHISM.  For  what  is  schism,  amongst  Christians, 
holding  the  same  general  views  of  gospel  truth,  but  the  im- 
mediate offspring  of  the  evil  spirit,  bearing,  in  every  fea- 
ture, the  marks  of  its  parentage?  Like  Satan,  schism  ap- 
pears like  an  angel  of  light.  Like  Satan,  its  favourite  work 
is  to  be  an  accuser  of  the  brethren.  Like  Satan,  it  puffs  up 
the  heart  with  pride  and  self-confidence.  Like  Satan,  it 
delights  in  rebellion  against  all  constituted  authority,  and 
sets  itself  in  open  and  systematic  opposition  to  the  will  of 
the  Saviour,  by  following  strife  rather  than  peace,  discord 
rather  than  union,  and  hatred  rather  than  that  brotherly 
love,  which  should  be  cherished,  both  as  a  privilege  and  a 
duty,  towards  all  the  children  of  our  Father  in  heaven. 

But  however  fearful  and  odious  in  itself  the  sin  of  schism 
must  appear,  it  is  quite  another  question  how  far  our  non- 
episcopal  brethren  are  actually  involved  in  it.  For  separa- 
tion from  the  existing  Church  may  be  a  duty,  as  it  was  in 
the  case  of  the  Reformation;  and  in  such  case  there  is  no 
transgression,  since  it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  the  same 
act  can  be,  at  once,  a  duty  and  a  sin.  Perhaps  the  fairest 
mode  of  dealing  with  the  subject  would  be  to  apply  to  it 
the  maxim  of  human  justice;  namely,  that  it  is  the  criminal 
intention  of  the  actor  which  constitutes  the  crime.  In  the 
language  of  the  civil  law:  J^on  est  reus,  nisi  mens  sit  rea. 


73 

According  to  the  motive,  for  example,  the  killing  of  another 
man  may  be  justifiable  homicide,  or  manslaughter,  or  mur- 
der. The  act  is  the  same,  the  motive  makes  the  difference. 
On  the  same  principle,  a  separation  from  the  Church  may- 
be variously  characterized;  and  hence  the  following  consi- 
derations seem  worthy  of  attention. 

First,  then,  I  conceive  that  we  are  bound,  as  a  simple 
matter  of  justice,  but  much  more  as  the  dictate  of  charity, 
to  make  the  largest  possible  allowances  for  the  mistaken 
judgment  of  our  non-episcopal  brethren.  They  receive  as 
we  do,  for  the  most  part,  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
faith.  They  agree  with  us  in  an  anxious  desire  to  follow 
the  teaching  of  the  Bible.  And  if  they  hold  unscriptural 
and  unapostolical  notions  about  episcopacy  and  forms  of 
worship,  we  should  remember  that  they  framed  their  er- 
roneous ideas  under  circumstances  of  peculiar  temptation 
and  difficulty.  Once  roused  to  the  necessity  of  contending 
against  the  corruptions  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  it  was  na- 
tural, and,  indeed,  unavoidable,  that  men  of  ardent  tempe- 
rament would  be  unable  to  draw  the  line  with  accuracy  be- 
tween the  various  principles  of  right  and  wrong,  which  her 
system  for  so  many  centuries  had  confounded  together. 
The  Pope  was  a  bishop,  and  was  commonly  holden  to  be 
Antichrist.  Under  him  were  hundreds  of  bishops  all  over 
Europe,  bitter  against  the  Reformers,  and  set  against  the 
truth.  In  England  alone  were  any  bishops  found  willing 
to  take  part  against  the  papacy,  while  every  where  else, 
they  were  sustaining  its  despotism  with  all  their  power. 
How  easy  then  was  it  for  the  common  mind  to  conclude, 
that  the  office  of  bishop  was  part  and  parcel  of  popery? 
How  ready  to  believe,  that  where  so  much  was  evil,  there 
could  be  nothing  good?  Above  all,  when  they  discovered 
their  long  hidden  treasure,  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  be- 
came accustomed  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  false  doctrines 
of  their  former  teachers,  how  obvious  is  it  to  see,  that  they 


74 

would  cast  aside  all  respect  for  authority,  and  take  their 
own  interpretations  for  their  standard,  investing  them,  on 
all  occasions,  with  the  majesty  of  revelation — that  instead 
of  wisely  retrenching  and  purifying  the  existing  forms, 
they  would  prefer  the  shorter  and  more  thorough  work  of 
abolishing  forms  altogether — that  from  venerating  the 
priesthood  as  if  they  were  super-human,  they  wo^dd  fall 
into  the  opposite  error  of  distrust  and  contempt — that  from 
a  superstitious  awe  towards  the  altar,  and  the  sanctuary, 
and  the  cross,  and  the  shrines  of  images  or  relics,  they 
vs'ould  rush  into  the  contrary  extreme  of  light  familiarity 
and  irreverence?  Who  that  knows  any  thing  of  human 
nature  can  wonder  at  the  variety  of  errors  that  must,  under 
such  circumstances,  have  attended  the  restoration  of  Scrip- 
tural truth?  And  what  humble  and  affectionate  heart  can 
refuse  the  offering  of  praise  and  gratitude  to  the  Almighty 
Father  op  lights,  that  the  main  doctrines  of  a  saving 
faith  were,  notwithstanding,  professed  with  so  much  clear- 
ness among  them? 

But  secondly,  our  non-episcopal  brethren  are  entitled  to 
much  tender  allowance  from  the  fact,  that  they  did  not,  at 
their  first  rise,  separate  themselves  from  our  mother  Church, 
by  any  deliberate  or  wilful  act  of  schismatic  opposition.  A 
brief  reference  to  the  chronology  of  the  matter  will  make 
this  assertion  plain.  Thus  England  has  an  undoubted  right 
to  claim  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation,  through  the 
efforts  of  the  famous  Wickliff,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  four- 
teenth century.  At  that  time,  however,  the  power  of 
Rome  prevailed  to  put  down  his  followers,  and  although 
his  translation  of  the  Bible  was  extensively  read,  and  his 
writings  against  the  corruptions  of  popery  were  scattered 
far  and  wide,  (producing,  amongst  other  fruits,  the  eminent 
testimony  of  Huss  and  Jerome,  the  martyrs  of  Bohemia,) 
yet  it  is  certain  that  the  first  movement  which  took  a  suc- 
cessful hold  upon  the  public  mind  of  Europe  began  A.  D. 


75 

1517,  with  the  celebrated  Luther,  of  Saxony.  Zuinglius 
followed  A.  D.  1519,  in  Switzerland.  Olaus  Petri,  in 
Sweden,  Martin  Reinard  in  Denmark,  and  other  divines  in 
Hungary,  commenced  A,  D.  1522.  Prussia  welcomed  the 
truth,  the  year  afterwards,  in  the  person  of  John  Brisman; 
and  France,  under  the  favour  of  Margaret,  queen  of  Na- 
varre, had  even  churches  erected  about  the  same  time,  for 
the  preaching  of  the  Reformation.  But  at  this  period  Eng- 
land was  opposing,  instead  of  assisting  the  work  of  truth. 
Henry  VIII.  earned  the  papal  title  of  Defender  of  the  Failh, 
by  writing  a  book  against  Luther;  nor  was  it  until  1534, 
after  the  movement  had  been  going  on  successfully  for 
seventeen  years,  that  the  English  monarch  was  led  to  take 
his  stand  against  the  pope's  supremacy.  The  distinguished 
Calvin  commenced  his  career  as  a  reformer  about  the  same 
time,  and  the  following  year  beheld  the  publication  of  his 
famous  '  Institutions,'  which  placed  him  amongst  the  mas- 
ter spirits  of  the  age;  when  the  English  Church  was  only 
beginning,  cautiously  and  gradually,  to  prepare  the  way  for 
her  subsequent  system. 

King  Henry  died  in  1547,  and  at  this  time  but  little 
progress  had  been  made  in  the  restoration  of  the  spiritual 
fabric,  although  the  chief  obstacles  had  been  effectually 
beaten  down.  The  short  reign  of  his  successor  terminated 
in  1553,  during  whicli,  indeed,  the  work  went  on  with 
vigour,  and  a  considerable  measure  of  success.  But  the 
reign  of  the  persecuting  Mary  followed,  and  destroyed 
the  whole;  saving  only  the  salutary  and  deep  impression 
which  the  mass  of  the  nation  received,  under  God,  from 
the  cruelty  of  the  Roman  priests,  and  the  glorious  constancy 
of  the  English  martyrs.  In  A.  D.  1558,  the  sun  shone 
out  once  more  upon  the  Reformation,  for  Mary  was  re- 
moved to  make  way  for  Elizabeth;  and  in  A.  D.  1559,  the 
Church  of  England  was  placed  upon  a  solid  basis,  although 
three  years  more  elapsed,  before  her  Articles  &c.  were  com- 
pleted. 


76 

Now  these  dates  prove,  conclusively,  that  the  reformed 
Churches  on  the  continent,  who  had  not  the  power  of  re- 
taining episcopacy,  however  sincerely  they  desired  it,  were 
first  in  the  field;  and  had  been  compelled  to  give  a  positive 
form  to  their  respective  communities  long  before  our  Mo- 
ther Church  was  in  a  condition  to  assist  them.  A  new  ge- 
neration had  risen  up  under  the  influence  of  these  various 
ecclesiastical  systems;  hundreds  of  thousands  were  interest- 
ed and  ardent  in  their  support;  cities,  states,  and  kingdoms, 
had  incorporated  them  into  their  habits,  and  even  into  their 
laws;  and  hence,  when  they  were  afterwards  advocated  in 
England,  we  may  well  believe  that  it  was  not  from  the 
wantonness  of  a  schismatic  spirit,  so  much  as  from  a  sincere 
conviction,  formed  on  the  continent  by  the  exiles  during 
Mary's  reign,  that  it  would  improve  the  purity  and  enlarge 
the  influence  of  the  Church  of  England,  if  her  system  could 
be  so  modified  as  to  differ  less  from  the  rest  of  the  reformed. 
Surely,  separations  arising  under  such  peculiar  circum- 
stances,deservethe  kindliest  temper  of  charitable  allowance. 
They  are  plainly  of  a  totally  different  spirit  from  the 
schisms  which  troubled  the  primitive  Church;  for  during 
the  first  ages  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  there  was  no 
serious  corruption  to  reform,  and  no  apology,  much  less 
necessity,  for  departing,  in  any  respect,  from  the  apostolic 
platform.  And  therefore  whatever  the  defects  of  our  mo- 
dern separatists  may  be,  with  respect  to  ministerial  order 
and  worship,  we  should  much  rather,  in  the  language  of 
Hooker,  Hament  than  exaggerate  them.'*  Doubtless,  if  it  had 
pleased  God  to  establish  the  Church  of  England  in  the  first 
place,  and  a  set  of  pious  and  devoted  bishops,  with  their 
clergy  and  the  nation  to  co-operate  with  them,  had  been 
enabled  to  exhibit  the  spiritual  benefits  of  the  apostolic 
system  before  any  other  kind  of  polity  had  become  fixed, 
we  may  feel  reasonably  assured  that  all  the  reformed  would 
have  rejoiced  to  unite  in  the  same  sacred  orders  of  the  mi- 


77 

nistry,and  the  same  general  mode  of  worship.  For  we  have 
the  most  unquestionable  evidence  that  Luther,  JVIelanclhon, 
and  Calvin,  were  decided  friends  of  episcopal  government 
and  a  Liturgy;  and  therefore  the  unhappy  position  vvliich 
their  Churches  assumed,  and  caused  others  to  assume,  in  re- 
spect to  our  mother  Church,  has  every  claim  upon  our 
Christian  compassion,  as  having  arisen,  not  from  any  schis- 
matic intention,  but  from  the  force  of  circumstances  beyond 
all  human  control. 

It  is  worthy,  in  the  third  place,  of  our  most  serious 
consideration,  whether  the  schismatic  character  of  those 
Churches  can  be  properly  extended  beyond  the  specific  er- 
rors in  which  they  have  departed  from  the  apostolic  sys- 
tem. For  it  is  well  laid  down  by  the  eminent  St.  Augus- 
tin,  that  those  who  had  separated  themselves  from  the  so- 
ciety of  the  Church,  breaking  the  bands  of  charity,  were 
altogether  separate,  if  they  had  cast  aside,  in  all  respects,  the 
ordinances  of  the  Church.  But  that  if  they  continued  to 
do  some  things  as  the  Church  herself  did,  they  were  'not 
separated  in  those  particulars;  and  hence  they  retained  their 
place  in  the  substance  of  the  Church  in  some  respects,  while 
in  others  they  were  cut  off  from  her.*  If  such  a  kindlv 
sentiment  could  be  uttered  in  his  day,  when  schism  had 
comparatively  so  little  excuse  or  apology,  how  much  more 
does  it  become  us  now?  For  not  only  do  the  Orthodox 
Churches  of  our  non-episcopal  brethren  agree  with  us  in  the 

*  5.  Augustini  de  Baptismo  contra  Donatislas,  Lib.  I.  Cap.  Till.  0pp. 
Tom.  IX.  p.  57,  E.  Sic  etiam  qui  se  ipsos  a  societate  ctbterorum  sepa- 
rantes,  caritate  violata,  unitatis  vinculum  rurapunt,  si  nihil  faciunt 
eorum  quae  in  ilia  societate  acceperunt,  in  omnibus  separati  sunt:  et  ideo 
quem  sibi  sociaverint,  si  venire  ad  Ecclesiam  voluerit,  debet  omnia  qua; 
non  accepit  accipere.  Si  vero  nonnulla  eadem  faciunt,  non  se  in  eis 
separaverunt;  et  ex  ea  parte  in  texturae  eompage  detinentur,  in  cetera 
scissi  sunt.  Proinde  si  quem  sibi  sociaverint,  ex  ea  parte  nectitur  Ec- 
clesisE,  in  qua  nee  illi  separati  sunt:  et  ideo  si  venire  ad  Ecclesiam  vo^ 
luerit,  in  eo  sanatur  ubi  laniatus  errabat,  ubi  vero  sanus  connectebatur 
non  curatur,  sed  agnoscitur,  &c. 
8 


78 

genera]  truths  and  ordinancesof  the  gospel, but  we  knowthat 
a  certain  measure  of  fraternal  association  has  always  existed 
amongst  the  members;  nor  is  there  to  this  hour,  a  single 
act,  law,  or  rule,  either  on  their  part  or  on  ours,  which  for- 
bids their  ministry  or  people  from  sharing,  as  often  as  they 
will,  in  our  communion.  I  confess  myself,  therefore,  by 
no  means  sure,  that  schism,  strictly  speaking,  can  be  af- 
firmed, of  the  relation  in  which  these  Churches  stand  to  us. 
None  of  them  have  denounced  us,  nor  have  we  denounced 
them,  as  cut  ofi"  from  the  body  of  the  Church  Universal. 
Our  Christian  fellowship  has  been  less  or  more,  according 
to  times  and  circumstances,  but  it  has  not  been  severed  by 
any  sentence  of  anathema.  And  if  the  good  old  churchmen 
Hall  and  Wilkins,  who  deliberated,  and  voted,  and  com- 
muned together  with  the  Presbyterians  at  the  Synod  of 
Dort,  were  set  before  us  on  trial,  although  they  went  far- 
ther than  I  should  think  it  expedient  to  follow  them,  yet 
I  profess  myself  totally  ignorant  of  any  ecclesiastical  right 
or  power,  by  which  we  could  justly  pronounce  their  con- 
demnation. 

Lastly,  however,  it  seems  our  duty  to  exercise  this  fra- 
ternal feeling  towards  our  non-episcopal  brethren,  as  the 
only  way,  under  the  divine  blessing,  whereby  we  can  ex- 
pect to  do  them  good.  It  may  be  said,  indeed,  that  they 
will  not  thank  us  for  it,  that  their  spirit  towards  us  is  hos- 
tile and  acrimonious,  that  they  treat  our  claims  with  ridi- 
cule and  bitterness,  and  cannot  prevail  upon  themselves  to 
approach  their  discussion  without  the  strongest  display  of 
prejudice  and  dislike.  And  much  of  this,  alas!  is  but  too 
true.  But  surely,  it  affords  no  excuse  for  our  unkindness, 
or  asperity,  or  ridicule  in  return.  Our  divine  Master  has 
commanded  us  even  to  bless  those  that  curse  us,*  to  do  good 

*  "Hos  autem  inimicos,"  says  Augustin,  (Enar.  in  Psal.  cxxxi.  §  3, 
7,  4,  p.  1101.)  "  Ecclesia  debellat.  Et  quomodo  debellat .'  Mansuetu- 
dine.     Mansuetudine  enim  ipse  Rex  noster  vicit  diabolum." 


79 

to  them  that  hate  us,  to  pray  for  them  that  despitefully  use 
us  and  persecute  us,  if  we  would  indeed  be  the  children  of 
our  Father  in  heaven.  For  if  we  only  love  them  that  love 
us,  what  reward  have  we?  Do  not  even  the  publicans  the 
same?  Elsewhere  we  are  told  that  in  meekness  we  must 
instruct  those  that  oppose  themselves;  and  certain  it  is  that 
religious  discussion,  conducted  without  regard  to  those  ce- 
lestial rules,  has  no  promise  of  the  divine  blessing,  but  is  likely 
to  do  more  harm  than  good,  by  convincing  our  adversaries 
that  we  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and  therefore  can  be 
none  of  his.  0  which  of  us,  in  these  unhappy  days  of  po- 
lemic acrimony,  can  wash  his  hands  of  this  too  common 
transgression  against  the  temper  of  the  Gospel!  When 
shall  we  learn  to  prepare  ourselves  for  controversy,  by  first 
trying  the  spirit  which  animates  us,  to  discover  whether  it 
is  of  God  !  When  shall  we  cast  aside  the  sarcasm,  and  the 
bitterness,  and  the  ridicule,  and  the  scorn;  and  speak  and 
write  with  continual  prayer  for  the  wisdom  which  cometh 
from  above,  and  under  the  influence  of  that  awful  declara- 
tion, "  Whosoever  shall  say  unto  his  brother,  Thou  fool,  shall 
be  in  danger  of  hell  fire." 

1  mean  not,  by  these  remarks,  to  discourage  the  firm 
maintenance  of  the  truth,  as  it  seems  to  us,  on  every  topic 
of  religious  importance;  without  any  regard  to  the  fear  of 
man  which  bringeth  a  snare,  or  the  praise  of  man,  which 
bringeth  a  greater  snare.  We  are  bound  to  "  contend  ear- 
nestly for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints;"  and  being 
harnessed  by  the  hand  of  God  for  his  warfare,  we  may  not, 
like  the  rebellious  Ephraim,  "turn  ourselves  back  in  the  day 
of  battle."  But  yet  our  weapons  must  be  drawn  from  our 
divine  Master's  armory,  and  be  suited  to  that  Gospel  which 
is  the  religion  of  love.  Especially  when  contending  with 
our  fellow  Christians,  must  we  put  a  guard  upon  our  lips 
and  upon  our  pen;  since  far  better  is  it  that  we  should  for- 
ever hold  our  peace,  than  publish  aught,  on  which  we  can- 
not ask  His  blessing. 


80 

But  it  is  time,  my  beloved  brethren,  that  I  should  bring 
this  letter  to  a  close.  My  next  topic  will  call  for  some 
remarks  on  the  Eucharistic  controversy,  in  connexion  with 
the  late  sermon  of  Rev.  Dr.  Pusey,  and  with  the  general 
views  of  our  eminent  Oxford  divines  on  the  subject  of 
priestly  power.  In  full  faith  that  the  more  these  subjects 
are  discussed,  in  a  frank  and  affectionate  temper,  the  more 
we  shall  find  ourselves  united  and  strengthened  to  stand  in 
the  old  paths,  I  ask  the  benefit  of  your  prayers,  that  I  may 
be  enabled  to  contribute  my  humble  share  to  that  blessed 
end.  And  may  the  Lord  God  Almighty  grant  us,  through 
his  only  Son,  wisdom  and  grace,  that  we  may  all  "  folloio 
after  the  things  which  make  for  peace,  and  things  wherewith 
one  may  edify  another. 

Your  faithful  brother, 

And  servant  in  Christ, 

JOHN  H.  HOPKINS. 


Burlington,  Vermont, 
January  10,  1844. 


THE 


NOVELTIES  WHICH  DISTURB  OUR  PEACE. 


A   THIRD   LETTER 


ADDRESSED  TO  THE 


BISHOPS,  CLEEGY,  AND  LAITY 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


BY  JOHN  HENRY  HOPKINS,  D.D. 

BISHOP  OF  THE  DIOCESE  OP  VERMONT. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
HERMAN  HOOKER,— 178,  CHESTNUT  STREET. 

1844. 


.Entered  according  to  the  act  of  congress,  in  the  year  1844,  by  Herman 
Hooker,  in  the  clerk's  office  of  the  district  court  of  the  eastern 
district  of  Pennsylvania. 


THIRD    LETTER,   &c. 


Respected  and  beloved  Brethren: 

The  subject  to  which  I  have  now  to  solicit  your  atten- 
tion, involves  one  of  the  most  important  and  warmly  con- 
tested points,  in  the  whole  circle  of  Christian  theology; 
viz.  the  doctrine  of  the  holy  Eucharist,  or  Sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  A  very  peculiar  interest  has  been 
lately  given  to  this  topic,  on  account  of  the  extraordinary 
factj'that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Pusey  of  Oxford  has  been  suspended 
by  the  Vice-Chancellor,  for  preaching  a  sermon  on  the 
Eucharist,  which  was  supposed  to  be  unsound,  and  of  dan- 
gerous tendency.  The  discourse  has  been  printed  with 
extensive  notes.  Its  learned  author  maintains  that  it  is  in 
precise  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  our  mother  Church, 
and  some  amongst  our  own  divines  have  published  their 
decided  approval  of  it.  But  being  myself  of  the  number 
of  those  who  do  not  approve,  and  believing  that  the  views 
presented  in  that  discourse,  though  by  no  means  identical 
with  Transubstantiation,  are,  nevertheless,  almost  equally 
objectionable,  I  have  found  myself  compelled  to  reckon  the 
public  adoption  of  them  amongst  the  '' JS'ovellies  which  dis- 
turb our  pence,"  and  beg  your  kind  and  patient  examination 
of  my  reasons. 

For  the  purpose  of  stating  the  question  with  all  reasona- 
ble clearness,  I  shall  first  mention,  briefly,  the  principal 
varieties  of  doctrine  existing  amongst  Christian  divines 
with  regard  to  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  next 
9 


show  which  amongst  them  is  the  chosen  doctrine  of  the 
new  OxforJ  theology;  thirdly,  point  out  the  objections  to 
it,  from  the  Standards  of  our  mother  Church,  the  writing  of 
the  fathers,  and,  above  all,  the  Scriptures;  and,  fourthly, 
explain  my  meaning  in  sa3'ing,  that  it  is  but  little  less  open 
to  animadversion  than  Transubstantiation  itself. 

The  lowest  view  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  (passing  over 
the  Socinians,)  is  that  which  owes  its  origin  to  Zuinglius, 
tlie  celebrated  Reformer  of  Switzerland.  He  taught  that 
the  consecrated  Bread  and  Wine  were  merely  symbols  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  intended  to  be  received  in  me- 
morial of  his  death  and  sacrifice,  but  without  any  peculiar 
sacramental  efficacy  beyond  the  divine  grace  which  is  ac- 
corded to  every  act  of  pious  devotion. 

The  opposite  extreme  to  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Ro- 
manists, so  familiarly  known  by  the  name  of  Transubstantia- 
tion. They  maintain  that  the  Bread  and  Wine,  by  virtue 
of  the  priestly  act  of  consecration,  is  converted  into  the 
natural,  real  and  material  Body  and  Blood  of  the  blessed 
Redeemer,  nothing  of  their  former  substance  remaining, 
but  only  the  outward  appearance,  which  they  style,  the 
species.  From  the  conversion  of  the  substance  of  the  ele- 
ments into  the  substance  of  our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood, 
they  significantly  derive  their  term  Transubstantiation. 
They  further  hold,  that  this  is  now  the  living  Body  of  the 
Saviour,  which  is  inseparable  from  his  Soul  and  his  Divi- 
nity, and  hence  the  act  of  adoration  is,  of  course,  due  to  it. 
In  the  service  of  the  Roman  Mass,  therefore,  as  the  lan- 
guage is  Latin,  a  little  bell  is  rung  to  give  the  people  notice 
that  the  consecration  is  complete;  and  then  the  priest  lifts 
up  the  bread,  and  all  bow  down  to  it  in  worship,  as  to  the 
very  person  of  Christ.  The  term  Ilostia  (or  Host,)  which 
signifies  the  sacrifice,  is  now  appropriated  to  it,  and  in  those 
countries  where  the  papal  religion  prevails,  and  the  Host  is 
carried  through  the  streets,  (either  to  be  given  to  the  sick, 


or  else  in  procession,  on  the  day  which  they  call  Corpits 
Cliristi,)  every  one  without  exception  is  compelled  to  kneel 
down  as  it  passes;  and  thus  the  consecrated  bread  or  wafer 
is  regarded,  not  as  a  figure  or  emblem,  but  as  an  actual  Deity. 
The  priest,  accordingly,  holds  in  his  hands,  as  they  suppose, 
the  incarnate  Creator  and  Redeemer.  When  he  breaks  the 
Bread  or  wafer,  each  separate  piece  or  even  crumb,  becomes 
the  whole  Body,  Soul  and  Godhead  of  the  Saviour;  and 
when  he  puts  the  jjarticle  into  the  mouth  of  the  communi- 
cants, each  one  receives  it  as  being  the  actual,  entire,  and 
glorified  Humanity  and  Divinity  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
I  need  not  say  to  5'ou,  my  brethren,  that  our-  Church  holds 
this  to  be  formal  idolatry, and  that  sooner  than  acknowledge 
it,  the  reformers  of  England  welcomed  the  flames  of  mar- 
tyrdom, 

A  third  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  that  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  which  adopted  the  tenet  of  Consuhstan- 
tialion.  Their  great  leader  I^uther  maintained,  that  on  the 
act  of  Consecration,  the  material  Flesh  and  Blood  of  the 
blessed  Redeemer  become  united  with  the  bread  and  wine. 
He  agreed  with  the  Romanists,  therefore,  in  the  notion  of 
a  real,  carnal  or  corporal  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacra- 
ment; he  differed  from  them,  however,  in  holding  that  the 
bread  and  wine  did  not  become  converted  into  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  the  Saviour,  but  remained  as  they  were  be- 
fore; and  hence  the  term  consubstantiation,  which  was  ap- 
propriated to  his  doctrine.  Nevertheless  he  discarded  the 
Romish  practice  of  adoring  the  Host,  and  to  show  more 
plainly  that  no  worship  was  intended,  he  directed  that  the 
Communicants  should  receive  it  standing. 

The  fourth  view  of  the  Eucharist  is  that  which  I  have 
received  as  the  doctrine  of  our  mother  Church  and  of  our 
own.  According  to  this  interpretation,  the  elements  of 
bread  and  wine,  by  virtue  of  the  act  of  Consecration,  be- 
come the  holy  Symbols  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  cru- 


fied  Lord,  being  appointed  to  bear  this  emblematic  charac- 
ter by  his  own  express  commandment,  in  solemn  remem- 
brance of  his  Cross  and  Passion  for  the  redemption  of 
mankind.  Thus  far,  we  hold  the  same  view  with  Zuin- 
glius.  But  in  the  more  important  question  of  the  inward 
and  spiritual  grace  received  in  the  Sacrament,  we  go  incom- 
parably farther;  believing  that  in  the  due  reception  of  the 
representative  Body  and  Blood,  the  faithful  Communicant  is 
made,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  partaker,  verily  and  indeed,  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  after  a  heavenly  and  Spiri- 
tual manner,  so  as  to  become  mystically  one  with  his  Divine 
Lord,  and  to  strengthen  the  bands  of  that  glorious  incorpo- 
ration more  and  more,  with  each  repetition  of  the  Holy 
Communion;  provided  he  approach  with  genuine  repent- 
ance, lively  faith,  and  fervent  charity,  and  thus  ^'come  holy 
and  clean  to  the  heavenly  feast,  in  the  marriage  garment  re- 
quired by  God  in  Holy  Scripture." 

-This  view  of  the  sacred  Eucharist,  however,  does  not 
satisfy  our  Tractarian  brethren.  For  they  contend  that  the 
power  of  priestly  consecration  converts  the  elements,  not 
merely  into  the  emblematic,  symbolical,  figurative,  or  re- 
presentative Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  but  into  his  actual 
and  real  Body  and  Blood,  Soul  and  Divinity.  They  do, 
indeed,  carefully  refuse  to  define  the  mode  of  this  presence, 
so  as  to  difier,  in  terms,  from  the  Church  of  England,  and 
they  condemn  the  attempt  at  such  definition,  whether  it  be 
according  to  the  tenet  of  Transubstanliation,  or  that  of 
Consubstantiation.  But  although  they  censure  these  doc- 
trines, yet  they  seem  to  accord  with  the  Romanists  in  many 
important  particulars,  believing  that  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ,  (after  a  heavenly  and  spiritual  manner)  together 
with  his  soul  and  divinity,  become  present  on  the  altar  by 
virtue  of  the  prayer  of  Consecration,  that  tlie  Redeemer  is 
there  offered  up  by  the  priest  as  a  real  though  unbloody 
sacrifice,  and  that  the  Lord  is  received,  whole  and  entire, 


(although  still  uncorporeally)  by  every  faithful  communi- 
c&ni,fro7n  the  hands  of  the  officiating  minister. 

Now  it  will  be  easily  perceived  that  if  this  doctrine  be 
true,  there  would  be  no  idolatry  whatever  in  adoring  the 
consecrated  elements,  because  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is 
supposed  to  be  actually  in  those  elements,  locally  present 
under  the  sacramental  veils,  in  all  respects  except  the  material 
or  carnal  one  of  Flesh  and  Blood,  included  in  the  theory  of 
Transubstantiation.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  this  dif- 
ference could  not  affect  the  question  of  worship,  because  it 
was  not  on  account  of  his  flesh  and  blood  that  our  blessed 
Redeemer  was  worshipped  when  he  was  on  earth,  but  on 
account  of  his  essential  Deity  as  the  co-eternal  Son  of  God: 
and,  therefore,  if  the  priest  is  able  to  cause  that  the  Deity 
of  Christ  be  present  in  the  elements,  it  would  not  be  idola- 
try, but  true  piety,  to  prostrate  ourselves  before  him.  As 
manifest  it  must  surely  be,  that  every  particle  of  the  sacred 
Eucharist  becomes  as  divine,  upon  the  Tractarian,  as  upon 
the  Roman  theory;  the  same  fear  of  awful  profanation  if  a 
crumb  or  a  drop  should  fall,  the  same  solemn  reverence  for 
the  holiness  of  the  altar  and  the  vessels,  the  same  genuflex- 
ions on  approaching  them,  the  same  veneration  for  the 
priesthood  to  which  such  a  marvellous  prerogative  is  given, 
and — if  the  express  law  of  the  Church  did  not  forbid  it — 
the  same  reservation  in  the  consecrated  Pyx,  and  the  same 
homage  to  the  Corpus  Christi,  in  public  procession,  would 
consistently  follow.  Nor  am  I  able  to  discern  what  there 
would  be  left  worth  contending  for,  between  the  doctrine 
of  Rome  and  our  own;  for  assuredly,  after  granting  tliat 
the  eucharistic  bread  and  wine  contain  the  present  Deity  of 
Christ,  it  would  be  very  idle  to  quarrel  about  the  question, 
whether  they  were  not  transubstantiated  into  the  very  sub- 
stance of  his  flesh  and  blood  also. 

But  I  proceed  to  the  duty  of  showing  the  evidence  on 
which  I  rest  the  statement  of  the  new  Tractarian  doctrine. 


10 

And  I  shall  commence  with  Mr,  Palmer's  Treatise  on  the 
Church,  quoted  in  my  last  Letter,  because  there  is  at  least 
a  comparative  clearness  in  his  views,  demanded  by  the 
character  of  his  learned  work,  which  will  materially  aid  in 
settling  the  meaning  of  the  Oxford  Tracts  and  Rev.  Dr. 
Pusey's  sermon;  although  in  no  part  of  these  several  pro- 
ductions that  I  have  seen,  is  the  doctrine  exhibited  with 
such  perspicuity,  as  might  save  us  from  a  close  and  attentive 
examination: 

Our  author  professes  (vol.  i.  p.  526,)  to  set  forth  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church,  in  the  following  words: 

"Taking  for  her  immovable  foundation  the  words  of 
,  Jesus  Christ:  'This  is  my  body  .  .  .  This  is  my  blood 
of  the  New  Covenant;'  and  'Whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and 
drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life;'"  "She"  (sc.  the 
Church  of  England,  according  to  Mr.  Palmer,)  "believes, 
that  the  body  or  flesh,  and  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Cre- 
ator and  Redeemer  of  the  world,  both  God  and  man,  united 
indmsibly  in  one  person,  are  verily  and  indeed  given  to,  taken, 
eaten,  and  received  by  the  faithful  in  the  Lord''s  supper,  under 
the  outward  sign  or  form  of  bread  (and  wine,)  which  is,  on 
this  account,  the  'partaking  or  communion  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ.'  She  believes  that  the  Eucharist  is  not  the 
sign  of  an  absent  body,  and  that  those  who  partake  of  it 
receive  not  merely  the  figure  or  shadow  or  sign  of  Christ's 
body,  but  the  reality  itself.  And  as  Christ's  divine  and 
human  natures  are  inseparably  united,  so  she  believes  that 
we  receive  in  the  Eucharist,  not  only  the  flesh  and  blood  of 
Christ,  but  Christ  himself,  both  God  and  man." 

"Resting  on  these  words,  'The  bread  which  we  break, 
is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?'  and  again, 
'I  will  not  drink  henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine,'  she 
holds  that  the  nature  of  the  bread  and  wine  continues  after 
consecration,  and  therefore  rejects  Transubstantiation,  or 


11 

'the  change  of  the  substance '  which  supposes  the  nature 
of  bread  entirely  to  cease  by  consecration." 

"  As  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  preceding  truths, 
and  admonished  by  Christ  himself,  '  It  is  the  Spirit  that 
quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing:  the  words  that  I 
speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life,'  she 
holds  that  the  presence  (and  therefore  the  eating)  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood,  though  true,  is  altogether  heavenly  and 
spiritual,  of  a  kind  which  is  inexplicable  by  any  carnal  or 
earthly  experience  or  imagination:  even  as  the  Sonship  of 
the  Eternal  Word  of  God,  and  His  incarnation,  and  the 
procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  immeasurable  by  human 
understandings." 

"Believing,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  that  Christ  as- 
cended in  his  natural  body  into  heaven,  and  shall  only  come 
from  thence  at  the  end  of  the  world;  she  rejects,  for  this 
reason,  as  well  as  the  last,  any  such  real  presence  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood  as  is  '  corporeal '  or  organical;  that  is,  ac- 
cording to  the  known  and  earthly  mode  of  existence  of  a  body.'' 

"  Resting  on  the  divine  promise,  '  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh 
and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life,'  she  regards  it  as 
the  more  pious  and  probable  opm<on,  that  the  wicked, and  those 
who  are  totally  devoid  of  true  and  living  faith,  do  not  par- 
take of  the  holy  flesh  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  God  with- 
drawing FROM  THEM  SO  '  DIVINE '  A  GIFT,  and  not  per- 
mitting his  enemies  to  partake  of  it.  And  hence  she  holds, 
that  such  a  faith  is  'the  means  by  which  the  body  of  Christ 
is  received  and  eaten,'  a  necessary  instrument  in  all  these 
holy  ceremonies;'  because  it  is  the  essential  qualification 
on  our  parts,  without  which  that  body  is  not  received." 

"  Following  the  example  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of 
the  apostles,  and  supported  by  their  authority,  she  believes 
that  'the  blessing,'  or  'consecration'  of  the  bread  and  wine 
is  not  without  effect,  but  that  it  operates  a  real  change:  for 
when  the  sacrament  is  thus  perfected,  she  regards  it  as  so 


12 

<  divine  a  thing,'  so  'heavenly  a  food,' that  we  must  not 
^presume'  to  approach  it  with  unprepared  minds,  and  that 
sinners,  although  they  only  partake  of  the  bread  and  wine, 
partake  of  them  to  their  own  condemnation,  because  they 
impiously  disregard  the  Lord's  body,  which  is  truly  present  in 
that  sacrament.  Hence  it  is  that  the  Church,  believing  firmly 
in  the  real  presence  of  the  '  precious  and  blessed  body 
and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,'  speaks  of  the  Eu- 
charist, as  <  high  and  holy  mysteries,'  exhorts  us  to  consider 
the  '  dignity  of  that  holy  mystery,'  that  '  heavenly  feast,* 
'  that  holy  table,'  '  the  banquet  of  that  most  heavenly  food,' 
even  the  '  King  of  kings'  table.'  " 

To  render  our  author's  meaning  yet  more  clear,  he  says 
that  even  our  (Roman)  "  adversaries  are  compelled  by  the 
force  of  truth  to  clear  the  Church  of  England  from  the  im- 
putation of  disbelieving  the  sublime  mysteries  of  this  holy 
sacrament',"  and  he  cites,  in  a  note,  the  declarations  of  three 
Romanists,  to  prove  his  assertion.  "  Milner,"  saith  he,  is 
obliged  to  confess  that  the  genuine  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
England  is  that  of  the  real  presence Hornyhold,  ano- 
ther of  their  titular  bishops,  admits  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  of  England  in  the  Catechism  expresses  the  real 
and  substantial  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the 
sacrament,  as  fully  as  any  Catholic  can  do  ...  .  And  Bos- 
suet  affirms  that  even  the  declaration  against  Transubstantia- 
tion  leaves  the  English  at  liberty  to  believe,  that  the  body 
and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  are  really  and  substantially  pre- 
sent in  the  bread  and  in  the  wine,  immediately  after  conse- 
cration," 

I  turn  next  to  the  Oxford  Tract,  No.  10,  (vol.  i.  p.  55.) 
where  the  writer,  in  the  person  of  the  English  ministry, 
addresses  the  laity  in  these  words:  "  Then  you  will  ho- 
nour us  with  a  purer  honour  than  you  do  now,  namely,  as 
those  who  are  intrusted  with  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell, 
as  the  heralds  of  mercy,  as  the  denouncers  of  wo  to  wicked 


13 

men,  as  intrusted  with  the  awful  and  mysterious  gift  of 
making  the  bread  and  loine  Chrisl^s  body  and  blood,  as  far 
greater  than  the  most  powerful  and  wealthiest  of  men  in 
our  unseen  strength  and  our  heavenly  riches." 

Again,  in  the  celebrated  Tract  No.  90,  the  ingenious  au- 
thor finds  himself  opposed  by  the  language  of  the  English 
Prayer-Book,  where  the  posture  of  kneeling  in  order  to 
receive  the  sacrament,  is  explained  in  these  words:  "It  is 
hereby  declared,  that  thereby  no  adoration  is  intended  or 
ought  to  be  done,  either  unto  the  sacramental  bread  or  wine 
there  bodily  received,  or  unto  any  corporal  presence  of 
Christ's  natural  flesh  and  blood.  For  the  sacramental  bread 
and  wine  remain  still  in  their  very  natural  substance,  and 
therefore  may  not  be  adored,  (for  that  were  idolatry  to  be 
abhorred  of  all  faithful  Christians;)  and  the  natural  body  and 
blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ  are  in  heaven,  and  riot  here,  it 
being  against  the  truth  of  Christ's  natural  body  to  be  at  one 
time  in  more  places  than  one." 

In  plain  contrariety  to  this  assertion,  that  the  natural 
body  and  blood  of  Clirist  are  not  here,  the  author  of  the 
Tract  devotes  several  pages  to  prove  that  the  Prayer-Book 
meant  only  that  the  body  and  blood  of  the  blessed  Redeemer 
were  not  present  locally,  but  that  they  might  be  present 
in  the  sacrament  and  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  at  the  same 
time,  notwithstanding! 

I  come  next,  however,  to  the  discourse  of  Rev.  Dr. 
Pusey,  in  which  it  will  be  sufficiently  evident  that  he  sup- 
poses the  body  and  blood,  soul  and  divinity  of  the  Lord  to 
be  united  to  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  hands  of  the  priest 
and  on  the  altar  by  virtue  of  the  prayer  of  consecration.  The 
inconsistency  of  this,  with  what  we  have  hitherto  regarded 
as  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  will  be  shown,  as  I  trust, 
sufficiently,  by  and  by. 

"The  Holy  Eucharist,"  saith  our  author,  "  imparteth  not 
life  only,  spiritual  strength  and  oneness  with   Christ,  and  his 
10 


14 

indwelling  and  participation  of  Him,  but,  in  its  degree,  re- 
mission of  sins  also It  augments  life,  or  death;  gives 

immortality  to  the  living;  to  the  dead  it  gives  not  life  but 
death,  it  is  a  savour  of  life  or  death,  is  received  to  salvation 

or  damnation The  Lord,  with  unwearied  patience, 

bringeth  this  one  truth  before  us  in  so  many  different  forms, 
as  meaning  to  inculcate  that  life  in  Him  is  his  chief  gift  in 
his  sacrament,  and  to  make  a  reverent  longing  for  it  an  in- 
centive to  our  faith He  answers  not  the  strivings  of 

the  Jews, 'How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat?' 
Such  an  '  How  can  these  things  be?'  he  never  ansvvereth; 
and  we,  if  we  are  wise,  shall  never  ask  how  they  can  be 

elements  of  this  loorld,  and  yet  his  very  Body  and  Blood 

Such  is  undoubted  Catholic  teaching,  and  the  most  literal 
import  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  mystery  of  the  sacrament, 
that  the  Eternal  Word,  who  is  God,  hath  taken  to  him  our 
flesh  and  joined  it  indissolubly  with  Himself,  and  so,  where 
his  Flesh  is,  there  He  is,  and  toe  receiving  it,  receive  Him, 
and  receiving  Him  are  joined  on  to  Him  through  his  Flesh  to 
the  Father,  and  He  dwelling  in  us,  we  dwell  in  Him,  and 

with  Him  in  God He,  by  the  truth  of  the  sacrament, 

dwelleth  in  us,  in  whom  by  nature,  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  dwelleth,  and  lowest  is  joined  on  with  highest, 
earth  with  heaven,  corruption  with  incorruption,man  with 

God And  this  may  have  been  another  truth,  which 

our  Lord  intended  to  convey  to  us,  when  he  pronounced 
the  words  as  the  form  which  consecrates  the  elements  into 
his  Body  and  Blood,  that  that  precious  Blood  is  still,  in  con- 
tinuance and  application  of  his  one  oblation  once  made  upon 
the  Cross,  poured  out  for  us  now,  conveying  to  our  souls, 
as  being  His  Blood,  with  the  other  benefits  of  his  Passion, 

the  remission  of  our  sins  also That  which  is  in  the  cup, 

St.  Chrysostom  paraphrases,  '  is  that  lohich  flowed  from 
his  side,  and  of  that  do  we  partake.^  How  should  we  ap- 
proach his  sacred  side,  and  remain  leprous  still?  Touching 
with  our  very  lips  that  cleansing  Blood,  how  may  we 


15 

not,  with  the  Ancient  Church,  confess,  *  Lo,  this  hath 
touched  my  lips,  and  shall  take  away  mine  iniquities  and 
cleanse  my  sins." 

Again,  saith  our  author,  "This  is  (if  we  may  reverently 
so  speak,)  the  order  of  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  that 
the  Eternal  Word  so  took  our  flesh  into  Himself,  as  to  im- 
part to  it  His  own  inherent  life;  so  then  we,  partaking  of 
it,  that  life  is  transmitted  on  to  us  also,  and  not  to  our  souls 
only,  but  our  bodies  also,  since  we  become  flesh  of  His  flesh, 
and  bone  of  His  bone,  and  He  who  is  wholly  life  is  im- 
parted to  us  wholly.  The  Life  which  He  is,  spreads 
around,  first  giving  its  own  vitality  to  that  sinless  flesh 
which  He  united  indissolubly  with  Himself,  and  in  it  en- 
circling and  vivifying  our  whole  nature,  and  then  through 
that  bread  which  is  His  Jlesh,  finding  an  entrance  to  us  indi- 
vidually, penetrating  us,  soul  and  body  and  spirit,  and  irra- 
diating and  transforming  into  His  own  light  and  life."  .  .  . 
And  elsewhere,  quoting  from  one  of  the  fathers,  he  saith^ 
"We  come  to  bear  Christ  in  us.  His  Body  and  Blood  being 
diffused  through  our  members,  whence,  saith  St.  Peter,  we 
become  partakers  of  the  divine  nature." 

One  citation  more  may  suffice  to  give  a  fair  view  of  the 
leading  doctrine  of  this  sermon.  "Yet,"  saith  Dr.  Pusey, 
"although  most  which  is  spoken  belongs  to  Christians  as 
belonging  already  to  the  household  of  saints,  and  the  family 
of  heaven,  and  the  communion  of  angels,  and  unity  with 
God,  still  here,  as  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  there 
is  a  subordinate  and  subdued  notion  of  sin;  and  what  wraps 
the  saint  already  in  the  third  heaven,  may  yet  uphold  us 
sinners,  that  the  pit  shut  not  her  mouth  upon  us.  The 
same  reality  of  the  Divine  Gift,  makes  it  angeVs  food  to  the 
saint,  the  ransom  to  the  sinner.'' 

Now  it  is  perfectly  manifest  that  all  this,  and  much  more 
in  the  same  sermon,  accords  most  thoroughly  with  the  Ro- 
mish doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence.     Nor  is  there  one 


word  in  the  whole  discourse  of  Dr.  Pusey  which  could 
rescue  his  meaning  from  the  Roman  sense,  or  remind  the 
hearer  that  there  was  any  difference  between  them.  To 
demonstrate  conclusively,  however,  the  sentiments  enter- 
tained by  our  brethren  of  Oxford  on  this  important  subject, 
I  must  ask  your  special  attention  to  a  part  of  Mr.  Palmer's 
learned  treatise,  (Vol.  I.  p.  508,  &c.)  where  he  expressly 
asserts  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  has  not 
undergone  any  "malerial  change"  from  the  formulary 
established  by  Henry  VIII.,  especially  in  the  point  of  the 
Real  Presence.  The  standard  which  he  assumes  is  the 
book  called  'The  necessary  doctrine  and  Erudition,' 
set  forth  by  the  Convocation  under  that  sovereign,  A.  D. 
1543.  He  assures  his  readers,  (p.  524,)  that  the  Articles 
as  now  existing,  do  "  not  condemn  absolutely  all  change  of 
substance  in  any  sense,  but  the  particular  change  called  by 
the  Romanists,  'Transubstantiation,'  which  supposes  the 
bread  to  cease  to  exist."  And  after  touching  upon  various 
points  in  which  the  two  formularies  seem  to  differ,  he  con- 
cludes in  these  remarkable  words:  (p.  526,)  "Altogether/ 
see  not  that  there  is  any  great  contradiction  between  these  two 
formularies,"  (sc.  The  Necessary  Doctrine  of  Henry  VIII., 
and  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,)  '' in  matters  of  doctrine.  1 
dispute  not  that  several  of  those  who  composed  the  one, 
differed  in  some  points  from  several  of  those  who  com- 
posed the  other;  but  their  formularies  are  not  so  xoordedas  to 
evince  any  great  or  irreconcilable  opposition  between  the  public 
and  authorized  faith  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.,  and  in  that  of  Elizabeth." 

Here  is  an  allegation,  beloved  brethren,  of  immense  im- 
portance, not  only  because  it  serves  as  a  key  to  the  reason- 
ing of  the  Oxford  Tract,  No.  90,  and  to  the  whole  strain  of 
this  new  theology,  but  because  it  overthrows  the  general 
sense  of  history,  and  presents  the  entire  system  of  our 
Church  under  a  different  aspect.     Let  us,  therefore,  test  the 


17 


correctness  of  Mr.  Palmer  in  the  fairest  manner,  by  setting 
the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  as  settled  in  the  time  of  Henry 
VIII.,  side  by  side  with  that  of  our  present  Articles,  which, 
as  you  know,  were  established  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, A.  D.  1562. 


Doctrine  of  A.  D.  1543,  under 
Henry  VIII. 

"As  touching  the  sacrament  of 
the  Altar,  We  will  that  all  Bishops 
and  Preachers  shall  instruct  and 
teach  our  people  committed  by  us 
into  their  spiritual  charge,  that  they 
ought  and  must  constantly  believe, 
that  under  the  form  and  figure  of 
bread  and  wine,  which  we  there  pre- 
sently do  see  and  perceive  by  our 
outward  senses,  is  verily,  substan- 
tially, and  really,  co7itained  and  com- 
prehended, the  very  self-same  body 
and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ 
which  teas  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary 
and  suffered  upon  the  cross  for  our 
Redemption,  and  that  under  the  same 
form  andfigureof  bread  andwine,the 
very  selfsame  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  is  corporally,  really,  and  in  the 
very  substance  exhibited,  distributed 
and  received  of  all  them  which  receive 
the  said  sacrament,  and  that  there- 
fore the  said  sacrament  is  to  be  used 
with  all  due  reverence  and  honour, 
&c.  (Burnet's  History  of  Reforma- 
tion, Lond.  Ed.  of  1825,  2  vol.  p. 
381.) 

I  subjoin  the  abstract  given  by 
Bishop  Burnet  of  the  famous  law  of 
the  six  Articles,  passed  A.  D.  1539 
of  King  Henry's  reign,  and  not  re- 
pealed until  the  second  year  of  Ed- 
ward VI.,  which  is  more  precise  on 
two  points  connected  with  our  sub- 
ject, (lb.  1  vol.  p.  335.) 

10* 


Doctrine  of  the  Articles,  A.  D. 
1562,  UNDER  Elizabeth. 

"The  Supper  of  the  Lord  is  not 
only  a  sign  of  the  love  that  Chris- 
tians ought  to  have  among  them- 
selves one  to  another;  but  rather  it  is 
a  sacrament  of  our  Redemption  by 
Christ's  death ;  insomuch  that  to 
such  as  rightly,  worthily,  and  with 
faith,  receive  the  same,  the  Bread 
which  we  break  is  a  partaking  of 
the  Body  of  Christ:  and  likewise 
the  Cup  of  Blessing  is  a  partaking 
of  the  Blood  of  Christ. 

Transubstantiation  (or  the  change 
of  the  substance  of  Bread  and  Wine) 
in  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  cannot 
be  proved  by  Holy  Writ;  but  is  re- 
pugnant  to  the  plain  words  of  Scrip- 
ture, overthroweth  the  nature  of  a 
Sacrament,  and  hath  given  occasion 
to  inaiiy  superstitions. 

The  Body  of  Christ  is  given, taken 
and  eaten  in  the  Supper,  only  after 
an  heavenly  and  spiritual  manner. 
And  the  mean  whereby  the  Body  of 
Christ  is  received  and  eaten  in  the 
Supper  is  faith. 

The  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per was  not  by  Christ's  ordinance 
reserved,  carried  about,  lifted  up,  or 
worshipped. 

Article  XXIX.  Of  the  wicked  which 
eat  not  the  Body  of  Christ  in  the  use 
of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  wicked,  and  such  as  be  void 
of  a  lively  faith,  although  they  da 


18 

First,  That  in  the  sacrament  carnally  and  visibly  press  with  their 
of  the  Altar,  after  the  consecration,  teeth  (as  saint  Augustine  saitli)  the 
there  remains  no  substance  of  bread  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
and  loine;  but  under  these  forms,  the  Christ,  yet  in  no  wise  are  they  par- 
natural  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  takers  of  Christ:  but  rather  to  their 
■present.  Secondly,  that  communion  condemnation,  do  eat  and  drink  the 
in  both  kinds  is  not  necessary  to  sal-  sign  or  sacrament  of  so  great  a  thing- 
vation  to  all  persons  by  the  law  of  Article  XXX.   Of  both  kinds. 

God,  but  that  both  the  flesh  and  blood  The  cup  of  the  Lord  is  not  to  be 
of  Christ  are  together  in  each  of  the  denied  to  the  Lay- people;  for  both 
kinds."  the  parts  of  the  Lord's  sacrament, 

by  Christ's  ordinance  and  com- 
mandment, ought  to  be  ministered 
to  all  Christian  men  alike. 

Now  to  any  man  of  plain  and  ordinary  understanding,  the 
doctrines  of  tliese  two  formularies  are  utterly  irreconcilable. 
It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  system  of  Henry's  day  did  not  use 
the  term  Transubstantiation,  but  the  idea  conveyed  by  that 
term  is  as  strongly  and  distinctly  expressed  as  words  can 
set  it  forth;  and  1  need  not,  surely,  spend  time  in  proving 
that  the  doctrine  does  not  depend  upon  the  technical  word, 
but  may  be  taught  just  as  distinctly  without  it.  Thus, 
therefore,  as  I  apprehend  the  matter,  stands  the  contrast 
between  them. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist, 
in  King  Henry's  formulary,  is  defined  in  precise  accordance 
with  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  conversion  of  the  elements 
is  so  complete,  that,  according  to  this  formulary,  there  "re- 
mains no  substance  of  Bread  and  Wine,  but  under  these 
forms  the  natural  Body  and  Blood."  ..."  the  very  self- 
same body  and  blood  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Alary  and 
suffered  upon  the  cross." 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Article  asserts,  that  "  Transub- 
stantiation (or  the  change  of  the  substance  of  Bread  and  Wine) 
is  repugnant  to  the  plain  words  of  Scripture,  overthroweth  the 
nature  of  a  sacramentj&nd  has  occasioned  many  superstitions." 
Is  there  no  material  change  of  doctrine  in  this  ?     No  serious 


19 

contradiction?     Mr.  Palmer  assures  us  that  he  does  no 
see  any. 

In  the  second  place,  King  Henry's  fornmlary  asserts  a 
corporal,  substantial  presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the 
Saviour,  in  the  strongest  terms;  while  the  Article  as  ex- 
pressly asserts  that  "  the  Body  of  Christ  is  given,  taken, 
and  eaten  in  the  Supper  only  after  an  heavenly  and  spiritual 
manner.'^  Is  there  no  great  contradiction  here?  Mr. 
Palmer  assures  us  that  he  does  not  see  any. 

In  the  third  place,  King  Henry's  formulary  asserts  that 
"  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Saviour  are  ^' corporally ,  really, 
and  in  the  very  substance  exhibited,  distributed,  fln«?  received 

op   ALL    THEM    WHICH    RECEIVE    THE    SAID    SACRAMENT." 

But  the  Article  limits  the  reception  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ,  to  those  who  receive  the  sacrament  rightly,  wor- 
thily and  icilh  faith;  and  again,  it  expressly  declares,  that 
the  "  MEAN  whereby  the  sacred  Body  is  received  and  eaten, 
IS  FAITH,"  and  yet  again,  the  following  article,  quoting  St. 
Augustine,  is  devoted  to  the  assertion  of  the  important  doc- 
trine, that  "the  wicked,  and  they  that  be  void  of  a  lively 
faith,  may  press  with  their  teeth  the  sign  or  Sacrament, 
but  are  in  no  wise  partakers  of  Christ."  Is  there  no  ma- 
terial difference  here?  Our  learned  and  ingenious  author 
does  not  see  any. 

In  the  fourth  place.  King  Henry's  formulary  asserts  that 
the  communion  of  the  cup  is  "not  necessary  to  salvation 
to  all  persons  by  the  law  of  God,  since  the  flesh  and  the 
blood  of  Christ  are  together  in  either  kind."  This  is  the 
well  known  Romish  doctrine  of  Concomitancy,  by  which 
they  defended  the  gross  abuse  of  taking  the  cup  from  the 
Laity.  But  in  plain  opposition  to  this,  our  thirtieth  Article 
declares,  that  "  the  cup  of  the  Lord  is  not  to  be  denied  to 
the  lay-people,  for  both  the  parts  of  the  Lord's  Sacrament, 
by  Christ'' s  ordinance  and  commandment,  ought  to  be  minis- 
tered to  all  Christian  men  alike."     Is  there  no  great  contra- 


20 

diction  here?  Mr.  Palmer  tells  us  that  he  does  not  see 
any. 

Wonderful,  wonderful  capacity  of  the  human  mind! 
which  thus,  at  times,  casts  us  into  amazement  and  per- 
plexity. When  that  which  the  whole  Church  of  England 
supposed  to  be  a  total  change  of  this  most  important  doc- 
trine— which  the  persecutors  in  the  reign  of  Mary  con- 
ceived to  be  worthy  of  the  stake — which  the  martyred  Re- 
formers conscientiously  regarded  as  a  difference  so  material, 
a  contrariety  so  great,  that  life  and  death  should  depend 
upon  the  distinction, — which  the  foreign  churches  of  the 
Reformation  esteemed  to  be  a  glorious  victory  over  the  old 
superstition,  which  Rome  (notwithstanding  the  occasional 
"  admissions"  of  her  Jesuits,)  has  always  regarded  as  one 
of  the  surest  tests  by  which  to  convict  us  of  what  she  calls 
heresy ;  and  which  the  whole  body  of  our  Church,  with 
few  and  trifling  exceptions,  conceived,  until  lately,  to  be  a 
clear  and  marked  example  of  irreconcilable  opposition, 
should  yet  seem,  to  a  man  so  gifted  as  Mr.  Palmer,  and  to 
his  circle  of  pious,  learned,  and  talented  colleagues,  to  in- 
volve no  "material  change,"  no  "very  great  contradiction^' 

Doubtless,  our  Tractarian  brethren  are  perfectly  sincere. 
I  have  no  right,  and  assuredly  not  the  slightest  disposition, 
to  question  their  candour;  and  their  intellectual  power  and 
the  affluence  of  their  theological  treasury  are  equally  rare 
and  admirable.  But  after  all,  Mr.  Palmer,  whose  Treatise 
on  the  Church  may  be  justly  regarded  as  their  System,  ap- 
pears to  me  to  need  a  most  indispensable  requisite  for  the 
work  which  he  has  undertaken.  He  offers  himself  as  a 
guide,  and  evidently  possesses  many  high  qualifications  for 
the  office.  Nevertheless,  he  assures  us  that '  he  does  not  see' 
the  difference  which  all  Europe  and  the  United  States  have 
seen — which  every  historian  has  noted — which  every  tyro 
in  ecclesiastical  affairs  has  professed  to  understand — viz. 
the  "  material  change"  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments 


21 

in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  to  the  Articles  under  queen 
Elizabeth,  Cranmer  himself  bore  witness  to  that  change, 
by  plainly  professing  that  Ridley  had  opened  his  eyes  to  his 
former  error.  The  martyr  Latimer  resigned  his  bishopric 
for  no  other  reason  than  the  passing  of  the  law  of  the  six 
articles.  It  is  surely,  therefore,  a  serious  question  to  those 
who  desire  to  take  Mr.  Palmer  for  a  guide,  whether  any 
other  qualification  can  supply  his  singular  lack  of  vision. 
For  my  own  part,  I  deeply  regret  the  necessity  which 
obliges  me  to  animadvert  upon  the  statements  of  a  man 
for  whose  research  and  ability  I  have  so  high  a  regard. 
But  this  same  incapacity  to  see  the  'great' or  ' material' 
difference  between  Rome  and  England,  will  present  itself 
in  some  other  particulars,  before  I  close. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  prove  that  the  doctrine  of  our 
Oxford  brethren  concerning  the  Real  Presence,  is  not  the 
true  doctrine  of  our  mother  Church  or  of  our  own,  by  a  few 
plain  authorities,  commencing  with  the  Homily  on  this 
subject,  written  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  if  not  by  the 
hand,  yet  certainly  with  the  entire  concurrence  of  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer,  and  Bishop  Ridley,  his  most  efficient 
colleague. 

"Three  things,"  saith  this  excellent  Homily,  "be  re- 
quisite in  him  which  would  seemly,  as  becometh  such  high 
mysteries,  resort  to  the  Lord's  table.  That  is,  first,  a  right 
and  worthy  estimation  and  understanding  of  this  mystery. 
Secondly,  to  come  in  a  sure  faith.  And  thirdly,  to  have 
newness  or  pureness  of  life  to  succeed  the  receiving  of  the 
same." 

"But  before  all  other  things,  this  we  must  be  sure  of 
especially,  that  this  supper  be  in  such  wise  done  and 
ministered,  as  our  Lord  and  Saviour  did,  and  commanded 
to  be  done,  as  his  holy  Apostles  used  it,  and  the  good  fathers 
in  the  primitive  Church  frequented  it.  For  (as  that  worthy 
man  St.  Ambrose  saith)  he  is  unworthy  of  the  Lord,  that 


5^ 

otherwise  doth  celebrate  that  mystery,  than  it  was  delivered 
by  Him.  Neither  can  he  be  devout,  that  otherwise  doth 
presume  than  it  was  given  by  the  Author.  IVe  must  then 
take  heed,  lest,  of  the  memory,  it  be  made  a  sacrifice;  lest  of  a 
communion,  it  be  made  a  private  eating;  lest,  of  two  parts, 
we  have  but  one;  lest,  applying  it  for  the  dead,  we  lose  the 

fruit  that  be  alive Neither  need  we  to  think  that 

such  exact  knowledge  is  required  of  every  man,  that  he  be 
able  to  discuss  all  high  points  in  the  doctrine  thereof, 
(Matt,  xxvi.,)  but  thus  much  we  must  be  sure  to  hold,  that 
in  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  there  is  no  vain  ceremony,  no 
bare  sign,  no  untrue  figure  of  a  thing  absent;  but,  as  the 
Scripture  saith,  the  table  of  the  Lord,  the  Bread  and  Cup 
of  the  Lord,  the  memory  of  Christ,  the  annunciation  of  his 
death,  yea,  the  communion  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
THE  Lord,  in  a  marvellous  incorporation,  which  by 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (the  very  bond  of  our 
conjunction  with  Christ)  is,  through  faith,  wrought  in  the 
SOULS  of  the  faithful,  whereby  not  only  their  souls  live 
to  eternal  life,  but  they  surely  trust  to  win  their  bodies  a 
resurrection  to  immortality."  (1  Cor.  xi.) 

"  Now  it  followeth  to  have  with  this  knowledge  a  sure  and 
constant  faith,  not  only  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  available 
for  the  redemption  of  all  the  world,  for  the  remission  of 
sins  and  reconciliation  with  God  the  Father;  but  also  thai 
he  hath  made  upon  his  cross  a  full  and  sufficient  sacri- 
fice/or thee,  a  perfect  cleansing  of  thy  sins,  so  that  thou 
acknowledgest  no  other  Saviour,  Redeemer,  Mediator, 
Jldvocate,  Intercessor,  but  Christ  only;  and  that  thou 
mayest  say  with  the  Jijmstle,  that  he  loved  thee,  and 
gave  himself  for  thee.  For  this  is  to  stick  fast  to  Christ's 
promise  made  in  his  institution,  to  make  Christ  thine  oivn, 
and  to  apply  his  m,erits  unto  thyself.  Herein  thou 
needest  no  other  mail's  help,  no  other  sacrifice  or  obla- 
tion, no  sacrificing  priest,  no  mass,  no  means  established 


S3 

hy  man's  invention.  That  faith  is  a  necessary  instrument 
in  all  these  holy  ceremonies,  we  may  thus  assure  ourselves, 
<  for  that,'  as  St.  Paul  saith, '  without  faith  it  is  impossible 
to  please  God.'  [Heb.  xi.)  When  a  great  number  of  Israel- 
ites were  overthrown  in  the  wilderness,  Moses,  Aaron,  and 
Phineas  did  eat  manna,  and  pleased  God,  for  that  they  un- 
derstood, saith  St.  Augustine,  the  visible  meat  spiritually. 
[In  Johan.  Horn.  6.)  Spiritually  they  hungered  it,  spiritu- 
ally they  tasted  it,  that  they  might  be  spiritually  satisfied. 
And  truly  as  the  bodily  meat  cannot  feed  the  outward  man, 
unless  it  be  let  into  a  stomach  to  be  digested,  which  is 
healthful  and  sound,  no  more  can  the  inward  man  be  fed, 
except  hism,eat  be  received  into  his  soul  and  heart,  sound 
and  whole  in  faith.  Therefore,  saith  Cyprian,  when  we 
do  these  things,  we  need  not  to  whet  our  teeth;  but  with 
sincere  faith  we  break  and  divide  that  whole  bread.  [De 
coena  Domini.)  It  is  well  known  that  the  meat  we  seek 
for  in  this  supper  is  spiritual  food,  the  nourishment  of  our 
soul,  a  heavenly  refection,  and  not  earthly;  a  ghostly  sub- 
stance, and  not  carnal;  so  that  to  think  that  without  faith 
we  may  enjoy  the  eating  and  drinking  thereof,  or  that  that 
is  the  fruition  of  it,  is  but  to  dream  a  gross  carnal  feeding, 
basely  objecting  and  binding  ourselves  to  the  elements  and 
creatures.  Whereas,  by  the  advice  of  the  council  of  Nicene, 
we  ought  to  lift  up  our  minds  by  faith,  and  leaving 
those  inferior  and  earthly  things,  there  seek  it,  where  the 
Sun  of  righteousness  ever  shineth.^^  {CoJicil.  Nic.) 

"Thus  we  see,  beloved,  that  resorting  to  this  table,  we 
must  pluck  up  all  the  roots  of  infidelity,  all  distrust  in 
God's  promises,  that  we  may  make  ourselves  living  mem- 
bers of  Christ's  body.  For  the  unbelievers  and  faithless 
cannot  feed  upon  that  precious  body.  Whereas  the  faith- 
ful have  their  life,  their  abiding  in  him,  their  union,  and  as 
it  were  their  incorporation  with  him.  Wherefore  let  us 
prove  and  try  ourselves,  unfeignedly,  without   flattering 


24 

ourselves,  whether  we  be  plants  of  the  fruitful  olive,  living 
branches  of  the  true  vine,  members  indeed  of  Christ's 
mystical  body;  whether  God  hath  purified  our  hearts  by 
faith,  to  the  sincere  acknowledging  of  his  gospel,  and  em- 
bracing of  his  mercies  in  Christ  Jesus;  so  that  at  this  his 
table,  we  receive  not  only  the  outward  sacrament,  hut 
the  spiritual  thing  also,  not  the  figure,  but  the  truth; 
not  the  shadow  only,  but  the  body,  not  to  death  but  to 
life,  not  to  destruction,  but  to  salvation:  which  God  grant 
us  through  the  merits  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour." 

Next  to  this  excellent  Homily,  and  also  as  a  sure  com- 
mentary on  it,  I  shall  set  down  the  judgment  of  the  mar- 
tyr Cranmer,  as  it  is  stated  in  substance  in  the  first  page 
of  the  Preface  of  his  Answer  to  Gardiner,  (ed.  1551,)  only 
modernizing  the  orthography. 

"Where  I  use  to  speak  sometimes,  (as  the  old  authors 
do)  that  Christ  is  in  the  Sacraments,  I  mean  the  same  as 
they  did  understand  the  matter:  that  is  to  say,  not  of 
Christ's  carnal  presence  in  the  outward  Sacrament,  but 
sometimes  of  his  sacramental  presence,  and  sometimes  by 
this  word  sacrament  I  mean  the  whole  ministration  and 
RECEIVING  OP  THE  SACRAMENTS,  either  of  Baptism  or  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  And  so  the  old  writers  many  times 
do  say,  that  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  be  present  in  the 
Sacraments,  not  meaning  by  that  manner  of  speech,  that 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  be  present  in  the  loater,  bread,  or 
loine,  (which  be  only  the  outward  visible  Sacraments)  but 
that  in  the  due  ministration  of  the  Sacraments,  according 
to  Christ's  ordinance  and  institution,  Christ  and  his  Holy 
Spirit  be  truly  and  indeed  present  by  their  mighty  and  sancti- 
fying pou'er,  virtue,  and  grace,  in  all  them  that  worthily 
RECEIVE  the  same.  Morcovcr,  when  I  say  and  repeat 
many  times  in  my  book,  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  present 
in  them  that  worthily  receive  the  Sacrament,  lest  any  man 
should  mistake  my  words,   and  think  that  I  mean,  that 


25 

although  Christ  be  not  corporally  in  the  outward  visible 
signs,  yet  he  is  corporally  in  the  persons  that  duly  re- 
ceive them;  this  is  to  advertize  the  reader  that  I  mean  no 
such  thing:  but  my  meaning  is,  that  the  force,  the  grace, 
the  virtue,  and  benefit  of  Christ's  body  that  was  crucified 
for  us,  and  of  his  blood  that  was  shed  for  us,  be  really 
and  effectually  present  with  all  them  that  duly  receive  the 
sacraments.  But  all  this  I  understand  of  his  spiritual  pre- 
sence, of  the  which  he  saith,  /  will  be  with  you  until  the 
world's  end;  and  wheresoever  tivo  or  three  be  gathered  together 
in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  he  that  eateth 
my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  dwelleth  in  me  and  I  in  him. 
Nor  no  more  truly  is  he  corporally  or  really  present  in  the  due 
ministration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  than  he  is  in  the  due  minis- 
tration of  Baptism.'' 

I  must  solicit  your  attention,  here,  beloved  brethren,  to 
a  distinction  which  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  understand, 
in  order  to  avoid  a  very  erroneous  inference  from  the  lan- 
guage of  our  Catechism,  by  no  means  uncommon  at  the 
present  day.  In  that  familiar  and  valuable  coippend  of 
sound  instruction,  it  is  declared  that  a  sacrament  consists  of 
two  parts,  the  outward  and  visible  sign,  and  the  inward  and 
spiritual  grace;  and  this  statement  is  afterwards  applied  to 
Baptism  and  the  Eucharist,  by  setting  forth  tiiese  sacra- 
ments in  their  forms  and  elements,  and  in  their  spiritual 
effects  respectively,  when  rightl}^  received;  the  inward  part, 
or  thing  signified  by  the  sacrament  of  the  Holy  Eucharist 
being  said  to  be,  The  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  which  are 
verily  and  indeed  taken  and  received  by  the  faithful  in  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

Here  it  is  evident  that  the  outward  and  visible  sign  is 
called  only  a  part  of  the  Sacrament,  whereas  it  is  properly 
called  the  Sacrament  without  restriction  in  the  Articles, 
and  is  rightly  so  defined  in  the  Catechism  itself,  where  it 
is  said  that  a  sacrament  is  an  "outward  and  visible  sign  of 
11 


26 

an  inward  and  spiritual  grace,"  &c.  In  accordance  with 
this  more  strictly  correct  meaning  of  the  term,  the  2Sth 
Article  saith  that  "the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  not  by  Christ's  ordinance  reserved,  carried  about,  lifted 
up,  or  worshipped:"  and  the  29th  Article  saith,  that  "the 
wicked,  and  such  as  be  void  of  a  lively  faith,  although  they 
do  carnally  and  visibly  press  with  their  teeth,  (as  St.  Au- 
gustine saith)  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  yet  in  no  wise  are  they  partakers  of  Christ,  but 
rather  to  their  condemnation,  do  eat  and  drink  the  sis:n  or 
Sacrament  of  so  great  a  thing."  In  both  these  places,  espe- 
cially the  last,  it  is  quite  manifest  that  the  word  Sacrament 
is  taken  as  synonymous  with  the  word  Sign,  (or  Symbol) 
and  is  applied  to  that  kind  of  administration  (viz.  the  com- 
munion of  the  wicked)  in  which  the  inward  and  spiritual 
grace  is  confessedly  wanting.  And  this,  indeed,  is  the 
genuine  meaning  of  the  word,  according  to  Patristic  and 
primitive  usage,  since  it  was  the  current  statement  of  the 
fathers  that  heretics  and  schismatics  had  the  Sacraments,  but 
received  no  spiritual  grace  thereby. 

Now  the  passage  which  I  have  extracted  from  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer  will  be  found  especially  important,  because 
it  not  only  proves  the  latitude  with  which  the  word  was 
used,  but  also  furnishes  the  true  test  for  its  interpretation. 
In  one  sense,  and  that  the  more  ancient  one,  it  signified 
the  outward  and  visible  Sacrament,  such  as  the  water,  and  the 
bread  and  wine.  In  the  other  sense  it  signified  the  whole 
ministration  and  receiving  of  the  Sacrament,  which  included 
the  inward  and  spiritual  grace  bestowed,  by  the  power  of 
the  Lord,  on  the  faith  of  the  worthy  receiver.  In  the  first 
sense,  Cranmer  held  that  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  were 
not  present  in  the  Sacrament:  in  the  second  sense,  he  ad- 
mitted that  they  ivere  present  to  the  hearts  of  the  faithful. 
A  want  of  discrimination  between  these  two  modes  of 
using  the  word  Sacrament,  has  led  to  great  confusion  of 


27 

ideas  amongst  those  who  have  undertaken  to  represent  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church.  And  it  is  this  confusion  of  ideas, 
(as  I  would  fain  hope,  rather  than  inapute  a  dishonest  in- 
tention to  any  of  my  respected  brethren)  which  has  in- 
duced Dr.  Pusey  and  his  friends  to  claim  authority  from 
Ridley,  Hooker,  and  other  eminent  writers,  whose  senti- 
ments, rightly  understood,  are  directly  opposed  to  him. 

Let  us  next,  therefore,  proceed  to  the  language  of  the 
eminent  Bishop  Ridley,  whom  Cranmer  professed  to  have 
been  his  own  instructer  on  this  very  subject.*  The  fol- 
lowing passages,  taken  from  his  Disputation  at  Oxford,  in 
full  assurance  of  his  approaching  martyrdom,  are  well 
worthy  of  our  confidence  and  veneration. 

"  Christ  left  his  body  and  flesh,"  saith  he,f  "  in  mystery 
to  the  faithful  in  the  Supper,  to  be  received  after  a  spiritual 
communication  and  by  grace.  J^either  is  the  same  received 
in  the  Supper  only,  but  also  at  other  limes,  by  hearing  the  Gos- 
pel and  by  faith." 

"  I  worship  Christ  in  the  Sacrament,"  saith  he  else- 
where,+  "but  not  because  he  is  included  in  the  Sacrament; 
like  as  I  worship  Christ  also  in  the  Scriptures,  not  because 
he  is  really  included  in  them. — The  true  Church  of  Christ 
doth  acknowledge  a  presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  to  be  communicated  to  the  godly  by  grace  and  spi- 
ritually, as  I  have  often  showed,  and  by  a  sacramental  sig- 
nification, but  not  by  the  corporal  presence  of  the  body  of 
his  flesh." 

Again,  saith  he,§  "  The  Eucharist,  taken  for  a  sign  or 
symbol,  is  a  Sacrament." 

"  Inasmuch  as  the  bread  and  wine  are  sanctified  and  made 
the  Sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  they 
have  a  promise  of  grace  annexed  to  them;  namely,  of  spi- 

*  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  HI.  p.  425. 
t  Fox's  Acts  and  Monuments,  Vol.  VI.  p.  485. 
t  lb.  492.  §  lb.  493. 


28 

ritual  partaking  of  the  body  of  Christ  to  be  communi- 
cated and  given,  not  to  the  bread  and  luine,  but  to  them 
which  worthily  do  receive  the  Sacraments.''''* 

"  The  Sacrament  hath  not  grace  included  in  it,^  but  to 
those  who  receive  it  well,  it  is  turned  to  grace.  After  that 
manner  the  water  in  Baptism  hath  grace  promised,  and 
by  that  grace  the  Holy  Spirit  is  given;  not  that  grace  is 
included  in  water,  but  that  grace  cometh  by  water." 

From  this  testimony  of  the  accomplished  Ridley,  I  turn 
next  to  his  fellow  martyr,  the  excellent  bishop  Latimer, 
whose  doctrine  accords  precisely,  and  was  by  himself  re- 
peatedly identified,  with  the  book  of  Archbishop  Cranmer. 
"It  appeareth,"  saith  he,|  "that  the  sacrificing  priesthood 
is  changed  by  God's  ordinance  into  a  preaching  priesthood, 
and  the  sacrificing  priesthood  should  cease  utterly,  saving 
inasmuch  as  all  Christian  men  are  sacrificing  priests." — 
"Christ  gave  not  his  body  to  be  received  with  the  mouth, § 
but  he  gave  the  Sacrament  of  his  body  to  be  received  with 
the  mouth ;  he  gave  the  Sacrament  to  the  mouth,  his 

BODY  to  the  MIND." 

In  a  very  faithful  summary  of  the  tedious  disputations 
between  the  papal  commissioners  and  our  blessed  Reform- 
ers, Fox,  the  martyrologist,  himself  a  divine  of  no  com- 
mon ability,  observes  very  justly,  that  the  Romanists  de^ 
ceived  themselves  about  the  matter  of  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
in  a  twofold  manner.  "  First,"  saith  he,]]  "  that  they  con- 
sider not  the  nature  of  a  Sacrament,  which  is,  not  to  ex- 
hibit the  thing  indeed  which  it  doth  represent,  but  to  repre- 
sent effectually  one  thing  by  another;  for  that  is  the  property 
of  a  Sacrament  to  bear  a  similitude  of  one  thing  by  another 
thing;  of  the  which  two  things  the  one  is  represented,  the 
other  indeed  exhibited.     Secondly,  that  they  consider  not 

•  Fox's  Acts  and  Monuments,  Vol.  VI.  p.  494.  t  lb. 

t  lb.  502.  §  lb.  506,  j]  lb.  581. 


29 

the  operation  of  faith,  which,  penetrating  up  to  heaven, 
there  apprehencleth  the  real  body  of  Christ  no  less,  yea, 
and  more  effectually,  than  if  he  were  here  bodily  present 
to  the  eye."  "Now  the  papists,"  continues  he,  on  the 
following  page,*  wheresoever  they  speak  or  read  of  the 
eating  of  Christ's  body,  conceive  no  other  eating  of  him 
but  only  of  that  in  the  Sacrament,  and  no  otherwise ; 
which  is  false,  and  the  cause  of  great  error,  in  that  they  see 
not,  neither  do  consider,  hoio  Christ  is  eaten,  not  only  with 
the  symbols  or  Sacrament,  but  also  without  the  Sacrament: 
which  eating  standeth  inwardly  by  faith,  and  pertaineth  to 
the  spirit  of  man,  in  apprehending  or  digesting  with  the 
stomach  of  faith  those  things  which,  by  the  outward  Sacra- 
ment, are  represented.  And  of  this  spiritual  eating  of 
Christ  speaketh  the  sixth  Chapter  of  St.  John." 

The  same  writer  has  constructed  a  Table,  which  seerns 
to  me  well  adapted  to  give  clear  and  distinct  ideas  of  the 
true  doctrine  of  our  Church  as  held  by  the  Reformers  on 
this  highly  important  subject.  With  this  view,  beloved 
brethren,  I  present  it  in  full,  and  I  beg  leave  to  recommend 
it  as  worthy  of  careful  and  repeated  perusal.  It  is  as  fol- 
lows: viz. 

"  The  body  of  Christ  is,  really,  spiritually,  and  sacra- 
mentally,  present,  eaten,  and  united.''' 

First. 
The  Body  of  Christ  is  really  present. 
"  So  was  the  body  of  Christ  once  present  here  on  earth 
with  us,  and  shall  be  again  at  the  day  of  his  comino-. 
Otherwise  it  is  not  here  really  present,  but  only  to  our 
faith,  really,  that  is  to  say  truly,  apprehending  his  body  in 
heaven,  and  here  feeding  upon  the  same  in  earth.  And 
thus  is  he  present  only  to  good  men,  whether  with  the 
symbols  or  without  the  symbols. 

*  Fox's  Acts  and  Monuments,  Vol.  VI.  p.  528. 
11^ 


30 


The  Body  of  Christ  is  really  eaten. 
"Really,  not  with  our  bodily  mouth,  but  with  the  mouth 
of  faith;  apprehending  the  real  body  of  Christ,  who  suf- 
fered for  us,  and  worketh  to  us  nourishment  of  life  and 
grace. 

The  Body  of  Christ  is  really  united. 
''  Really  and  corporally  the  flesh  of  Christ  is  united  to 
us,  by  his  incarnation,  and  the  partaking  of  our  flesh. 

Secondly. 
The  Body  of  Christ  is  Spiritually  present. 
"  Spiritually  we  say  his  body  is  present  when  either  the 
body  of  Christ  is  present  to  our  spirit  and  faith;  or  when 
the  virtue  of  his  body  is  present,  and  redoundeth  to  our 
bodies  and  spirits  by  grace.  And  this  differeth  from  the 
other  real  presence  above  in  this:  that  the  one  hath  re- 
spect to  the  body  apprehended,  the  other  to  the  thing  that 
doth  apprehend. 

The  Body  of  Christ  is  Spiritually  eaten. 

"  Spiritually  we  eat  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  not 
with  mouth  and  teeth,  but  with  faith  only,  whensoever  we 
believe  on  the  passion  of  Christ,  being  the  true  Bread  of 
Life,  and  the  only  food  of  man's  soul.  And  thus  is  he 
eaten,  but  only  of  good  men,  as  well  besides  the  Sacrament 
as  with  the  Sacrament;  and  of  this  eating  speaketh  the  sixth 
chapter  of  John.  And  so  was  he  eaten  in  the  time  also  of 
the  old  Law. 

The  Body  of  Christ  is  spiritually  united. 
"  Spiritually  he  is  united  to  us,  when  the  properties  of 
his  holy  body,  as  its  innocence,  power,  glorification,  eter- 
nity, beatitude,  &c.,  are  united  to  our  bodies  and  spirits, 
which  cometh  by  our  faith  in  him,  according  to  his  words 
in  John  xvii.  '  lin  them,  and  thou  in  me^  &c.    And  this 


31 

uniting,  standing  by  grace,  cometh,  as  well  besides  the  Sa- 
crament, as  with  the  sacrament;  only  to  the  godly. 

Thirdly. 

The  Body  of  Christ  is  sacramentally  present. 

"  Sacramentally  his  body  is  present,  by  representation  of 
another  thing  which  beareth  a  similitude  or  memorial  of 
his  body;  and  his  sacramental  presence,  pertaining  to  the 
outward  mouth  of  the  receiver,  is  common  as  well  to  the 
good  as  to  the  evil.  And  this  sacramental  presence  ought 
not  to  be  alone,  but  to  be  joined  with  the  spiritual  pre- 
sence, &c. 

The  Body  of  Christ  is  sacramentally  eaten. 

"  Sacramentally  we  eat  with  our  bodily  mouth,  the  mys- 
teries of  bread  and  wine,  not  being  the  real  body  indeed, 
but  representing  the  real  body  indeed;  id  est,  '^nonpanem 
Doniinum,  sed  panem  Domini.^'  And  this  eating,  if  it 
be  not  joined  with  the  other  two  above,  profiteth  nothing; 
and  so,  is  eaten  only  of  the  evil.  If  it  be  adjoined,  then  is 
it  eaten  of  the  good,  and  then  it  profiteth. 

The  Body  of  Christ  is  sacramentally  united. 

"  The  sacrament,  as  it  is  the  real  body  itself  of  the  Lord, 
so  it  causeth  not  itself  any  real  conjunction  betwixt  Christ's 
real  body  and  ours,  but  representeth  the  same,  declaring 
that  as  the  material  bread,  digested  in  our  bodies,  is  united 
to  the  same,  so  the  body  of  Christ,  being  received  by  faith, 
changeth  our  spirits  and  bodies  to  the  nature  of  him. 

To  the  sacramental  presence,  and  eating  of  Christ,  per- 
tain two  things  chiefly  to  be  considered:  Mutation  and 
Operation. 

Mutation. 

First,  Mutation  Substantial. 
"Whereby  one  substance  is  changed  into  another:  as 
water  into  wine;  the  rod  of  Aaron  into  a  serpent,  &c.     And 


33 

this  "mutation,"  which  they  call  "transubstantiation,"  be- 
longeth  nothing  to  the  Sacrament:  for  then,  accidents  of 
bread  should  also  be  changed,  as  the  accidents  of  Aaron's 
rod  were  changed,  with  the  substance,  into  a  serpent. 
Secondly,  Mutation  accidental. 
"  Of  this  "  mutation  "  speaketh  the  doctors,  meaning  not 
the  change  of  substance,  but  of  accidents,  which  standeth 
in  three  things;  in  the  use,  in  name,  and  in  honour' 

First,  in  Use. 
"  As  when  the  use  of  common  bread  is  changed  into  a 
mystical  and  heavenly  use. 

Secondly,  in  Jfame. 
"  When  the  name  of  bread  and  wine  passeth  away,  and  is 
changed  into  the  name  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord, 
and  so,  is  the  name  changed. 

Thirdly,  in  Honour. 
"As  when  the  bread  and  wine  which  before  were  received 
not  with  honour,  are  now  received  with  honour  and  reve- 
rence: not  that  we  honour  the  bread  and  wine,  but  the 
things  represented  in  them,  as,  in  a  king's  letter  and  seal, 
we  honour  the  king,  and  not  the  seal. 

Operation. 
First,  Operation  in  the  Sacraments. 
"The  operation  of  the  word  in  the  Sacraments  is  this: 
to  change,  not  the  substance  of  the  Sacrament,  but  that  the 
substance  thereof  remaining,  may  be  made  the  body  of 
Christ,  that  is  the  Sacrament  of  the  body  of  Christ.  And 
this  operation  cannot  come  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Whereof  Augustine  saith :  "  Pa7iis  non  sanctijicatur  in  sacra- 
mentum  tarn  magnum,  nisi  operanle  invisibililer  Spiritu  Dei." 

Secondly,  Operation  of  the  Sacraments. 
"  The  operation  of  the  Sacraments  is  thought  by  the  pa- 
pists to  give  grace,  which,  in  very  deed,  give  not  grace  of 


83 

their  own  work;  but  only  serve  as  instruments  and  means 
of  that  grace  and  life  which  cometh  from  God.  So  St. 
Peter  calleth  it  "  Verbum  vitse,"  the  Word  of  life;  and  St. 
Paul  calleth  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  "  the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation."  Not  that  they  themselves  give  life  and  salva- 
tion, but  that  they  are  certain  means  and  instruments  of 
that  life  and  salvation  which  cometh  to  us  from  God. 

To  the  spiritual  presence  and  manducation  of  Christ, 
principally  belongeth  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John;  albeit 
two  sorts  of  bread  are  there  specified,  namely,  bodily  or  sa- 
cramental, and  spiritual  bread. 

First,  Bodily  or  Sacramental,  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
also  of  the  New  Testament. 
"The  bodily  or  sacramental  bread  of  the  Old  Testament 
signifying  Christ  to  come,  as  manna,  the  rock,  &c.,and  the 
bodily  or  sacramental  bread  of  the  J^ew  Testament,  signi- 
fying Christ  already  come,  as  the  holy  Eucharist. 

Secondly,  Spiritual  Bread. 

"  Spiritual  bread,  which  is  Christ  himself,  born  for  us  and 
given  for  the  life  of  the  world.  John  vi.  "  My  flesh  is  meat 
indeed,"  &c. 

A  few  other  passages,  from  the  dying  professions  of  the 
martyrs  of  Christ,  may  be  useful  to  show  their  entire  agree- 
ment. Thus,  in  the  examination  of  the  admirable  Bradford, 
before  the  Archbishop  of  York  and  others,  we  have  the  fol- 
lowing:* 

"  York.  You  do  deny  the  presence." 

"Bradford.  I  do  not,  to  the  faith  of  the  worthy  re- 
ceivers." 

"  York.  Why,  what  is  that  to  say  other  than  that  Christ 
lieth  not  on  the  altar?" 

"  Brad.  My  lord,  I  believe  no  such  presence." 

*  Fox's  Acts  and  Monuments,  7th  vol.  p.  176, 


34 

"  Chichester.  It  seerrieth  that  you  have  not  read  ChrysoS- 
tom,  for  he  proveth  it," 

"Brad.  Hitherto  I  have  been  kept  well  enough  without 
books;  howbeit  this  I  do  remember  of  Chrysostom,  that  he 
saith  that  Christ  lieth  upon  the  altar,  as  the  seraphim  with 
their  tongs  do  touch  our  lips  with  the  coals  of  the  altar  in 
heaven;  which  is  a  hyperbolical  locution,  of  ivhich  you  know 
Chrysostom  is  fulV 

Taylor,  the  excellent  Rector  of  Hadley,  and  a  martyr, 
writes  strongly  concerning  the  same  subject.*  "  Whereas 
the  sixth  chapter  of  John,"  saith  he,  "was  alleged  to  prove 
.that  Christ  did  give  his  body  corporally  in  the  Supper, 
even  as  he  had  promised  in  the  said  chapter,  it  is  most  un- 
true. For  only  he  gave  his  body  sacramentally,  spiritually, 
and  effectually,  in  his  supper  to  the  faithful  apostles,  and 
corporally  he  gave  it  in  a  bloody  sacrifice  for  the  life  of  the 
world  upon  the  cross  once  for  all. — But  the  popish  mass  is 
another  matter.  The  mass,  as  it  is  now,  is  but  one  of  Anti- 
christ's youngest  daughters,  in  the  which  the  devil  is  rather 
present  and  received,  than  our  Saviour,  the  second  Person 
in  Trinity,  God  and  man." 

It  would  be  tedious  and  unprofitable  to  cite  the  several 
testimonies  of  that  noble  band  of  martyrs,  for  they  all  agree 
in  asserting  the  same  substantial  doctrine.  But  perhaps 
there  is  nothing  more  satisfactory  to  the  reflecting  mind 
than  the  language  of  the  Church  herself,  in  the  rubric  which 
is  at  the  close  of  the  office  for  the  Communion  of  the  Sick. 
It  is  in  the  following  words:  ' 

"  But  if  a  man,  either  by  reason  of  extremity  of  sickness, 
or  for  want  of  warning  in  due  time  to  the  minister,  or  for 
lack  of  company  to  receive  with  him,  or  by  any  other  just 
impediment,  do  not  receive  the  Sacrament  of  Christ's  Body 
and  Blood,  the  minister  shall  instruct  him,  that  if  he  do 

*  Folk's  Acts  and  Monuments,  6th  vol.  701. 


truly  repent  him  of  his  sins,  and  steadfastly  helieve  that 
Jesus  Christ  hath  suffered  death  upon  the  cross  for  him, 
and  shed  his  Blood  for  his  redemption,  earnestly  remem- 
bering the  benefits  he  hath  thereby,  and  giving  him  hearty 
thanks  therefor,  he  doth  eat  and  drink  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  our  Saviour  Christ  profitably  to  his  soul's  health,  although 
he  do  not  receive  the  Sacrament  with  his  mouth.'' 

In  this  we  have  a  plain  confirmation  of  the  great  truth, 
that  the  sacramental  eating  of  the  Body  of  our  Lord  is  one 
thing,  and  the  spiritual  eating  is  another.  The  real  pre- 
sence, therefore,  and  the  spiritual  uniting  with  Christ,  as 
the  Table  of  Fox  clearly  defines,  may  be  enjoyed  by  the 
faithful  and  godly  man,  not  only  with  the  symbols  or  Sacra- 
ment, but  also  without  them,  since  that  divine  and  celestial 
gift  is  bestowed,  not  upon  the  elements,  but  upon  the  be- 
lieving soul. 

Seeing,  then,  the  perfect  harmony  of  the  Prayer  Book, 
the  Articles  and  the  Catechism,  when  rightly  understood 
according  to  the  manifest  doctrine  of  those  admirable  men 
who  conducted  the  Reformation  to  its  triumph,  and  then 
laid  down  their  lives  as  witnesses  to  the  truth,  I  pass  on 
to  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  and  shall  show  how  absolute  an 
accordance  is  exhibited  by  tlie  learned  and  judicious  Hooker. 
Dr.  Pusey  has  indeed  appealed  to  him  as  he  did  to  the  mar- 
tyr Ridley,  but  in  both  instances,  unfortunately,  he  has 
lost  sight  of  the  passages  which  were  directly  to  the  point. 
Very  certain  it  is,  that  in  many  parts  of  Hooker's  great 
work,  expressions  may  be  found,  which,  taken  without 
qualification,  seem  to  be  altogether  favourable  to  the  new 
Tractarian  doctrine.  All  that  we  have  to  do,  however,  is  to 
take  the  whole  of  his  statement,  and  then  it  will  be  manifest 
that  he  taught  no  other  doctrine  than  the  great  Reformers 
who  had  gone  before  him.  The  following  passages  furnish 
conclusive  proof  of  this  assertion. 

"The  real  presence  of  Christ's  most  blessed  body  and 


56 

blood,"  saith  Hooker,  "is  not  therefore  to  be  sought  for  fn 
the  Sacrament^  but  in  the  worthy  receiver  of  the  Sa- 
crament." 

"And  with  this  the  very  order  of  our  Saviour's  words 
agreeth,  first, 'Take  and  eat;'  then  'This  is  my  body  which 
is  broken  for  you:  first,  'Drink  ye  all  of  this;'  then  fol- 
loweth,  'This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament  which  is 
shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins.'  I  see  not  which 
way  it  should  be  gathered  by  the  words  of  Christ,  when 
and  where  the  bread  is  his  body  or  the  cup  his  blood,  but 
only  in  the  heart  and  soul  of  him  which  receiveth  them. 
As  for  the  Sacraments,  ihetj  really  exhibit,  but  for  aught  we 
can  gather  out  of  that  which  is  written  of  them,  they  are 
not  really,  nor  do  really  contain  in  themselves  that  grace, 
which  with  them  or  by  them  it  pleaseth  God  to  bestow." 

"  If  on  all  sides  it  be  confessed  that  the  grace  of  Baptism 
is  poured  into  the  soul  of  man,  that  by  water  we  receive  it, 
although  it  be  neither  seated  in  the  water  nor  the  water 
changed  into  it,  what  should  induce  men  to  think  that  the 
grace  of  the  Eucharist  must  needs  be  in  the  Eucharist  before 
it  can  be  in  us  that  receive  it?"* 

Not  long  after  Hooker,  viz.  A.  D.  1601,  Dr.  William 
Barlow,  afterwards  bishop  of  Rochester,  published  a  treatise 
entitled,  "  A  Defence  of  the  Articles  of  the  Protestant  Re- 
ligion," which  he  dedicated  to  Bancroft,  then  Bishop  of 
London.  From  this  work  I  shall  give  a  short  extract, 
which  will  throw  fresh  light  upon  the  point  before  us. 

"  Great  difference  there  is,  (perchance  not  observed  by 
many)  between  our  eating  of  Christ,  and  our  uniting  with 
him." 

"We  eat  him  as  our  Passover  ....  dead  and  slain. 
And  so  that  speech  of  St.  Austin  is  true,  we  have  him  here 
in  pabulo,  as  he  was  in  patibulo,  torn  and  rent;  as  himself 
ordained  the  Sacrament  in  pane  fracto,  not  integro,  the  bread 

•  Ecc.  Pol.  Book  V.  ch.  Ixvii.  §  C,  Keble's  Ed.  Vol.  3,  p.  540. 


37 

broken,  not  the  whole  loaf;  thereby  signifying,  yea  saying, 
that  in  doing  it  we  must  remember  him,  not  as  living  among 
us,  but  as  dying  for  us;  ut  in  cruce,  non  in  codo,  as  he  was 
crucified,  not  as  he  is  glorified.  Whereby  we  conclude, 
first,  for  his  presence,  that  his  body  is  so  far  forth  there, 
quatenvs  edilur,  as  it  is  eaten:  but  his  bod)''  is  eaten  as  dead 
and  slain;  so  himself  appointed  it,  This  is  my  body,  and 
sta5'eth  not  there,  but  adds  withal,  which  is  given  for  you. 
And  his  blood  is  drunk,  not  as  remaining  in  his  veins,  but  as 
shed:  so  himself  speaketh.  This  is  my  blood  of  the  JYew 
Testament  shed  for  many.  Now  his  body  bruised,  and  his 
blood  poured  out,  can  no  otherwise  be  present  in  the  Eu- 
charist, but  by  a  representation  thereof  in  the  bread  broken, 
and  in  the  wine  effused,  of  the  one  side;  and  on  the  com- 
municant's part,  by  a  grateful  recordation  of  the  benefits,  a 
reverent  valuation  of  the  sacrifice,  a  faithful  application  of 
his  merits  in  his  whole  passion:  and  therefore  his  presence 
must  be  sacramental,  and  our  eating  spiritual;  for,  non  quod 
videtur,  sed  quod  creditur,  pascit,  saith  St.  Austin." 

"For  the  union,"  continues  our  author,  "we  are  united 
to  him  ut  viventi,  as  our  living  Head,  et  nos  vivificanti,  and 
making  us  his  lively  members.  It  is  true  which  Christ 
saith,  that  he  which  ealeth  my  flesh  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in 
him.  Not  that  this  union  is  first  begun  in  our  participation 
of  that  holy  Supper,  (for  none  can  truly  eat  the  body  of 
Christ,  unless  he  be  hrstunited  with  him, and  ingrafted  into 
him :  nee  vere  edit  corpus  Christi,  qui  non  est  de  corpore  Christi, 
saith  St.  Austin,)  because  primo  unio,  saitii  Aquinas,  the 
first  union  between  God  and  man  is  begun  in  Baptism  by 
one  Spi7'it,  as  the  apostle  speaketh,  and  continueth  by  faith, 
hope,  and  charity;  all  these  the  operation  of  the  same 
Spirit." 

"  But  if  we  truly  eat  tlie  body,  and  drink  the  blood  of 
Christ,  then,  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  faith  co- 
operating, this  union  is  strengthened,  the  vigour  and  effects 
12 


38 

whereof,  after  a  true  participation,  we  shall  feel  within  our- 
selves more  forcible  and  lively. — Is  not  Christ  as  present  in 
Baptism,  as  in  the  Eucharist?  For  in  them  both  we  com- 
municate with  him, bredanew  in  theone,/erfane^«intheother; 
and  3'et  Christ's  real  presence  is  not  challenged  for  Baptism. 
If  they  say,  No,  because  of  the  Eucharist  it  was  said.  This  is 
my  body  and  blood,  not  so  of  Baptism;  I  answer:  As  much, 
if  not  more,  was  spoken  by  the  Apostle :  They  which  are  bap- 
tized have  put  on  Christ,  (Gal.  iii.  27.)  Put  him  on  we  can- 
not, unless  he  be  present:  and  the  putting  him  on  is  even  the 
very  same  which  he  elsewhere  calleth,  Christ's  dwelling  in 
us;  (Eph.  iii.  17,)  namely,  that  in  Baptism  we  are  so  trans- 
formed, as  now  not  we,  but  Christ  alone  doth  live  within 
us;  (Gal.  ii.  20.)  as  near  an  unity  as  may.  And  in  truth  St. 
Austin  is  out  of  doubt,  that  in  Baptism  the  true  member  of 
Christ  corporis  et  sanguinis  Domini particeps  jit:  and  there- 
fore no  reason  withstands,  but  that  he  should  be  really  pre- 
sent in  both,  or  in  neither.'' 

The  same  important  argument  is  admirably  enforced  by 
Rev.  Dr.  Aldrich,  A.  D.  1687.  The  extract  is  long,  but  it 
is  well  worthy  of  an  attentive  perusal, 

"The  natural  body  of  our  blessed  Saviour  comes  under 
a  two-fold  consideration  in  the  Eucharist:" 

"1.  As  a  body  dead:  under  which  notion  we  are  said 
to  eat  it  in  the  Sacrament,  and  to  drink  the  blood  as  shed; 
as  appears  by  the  words  of  the  institution.  Take  and  eat; 
this  is  my  body  which  is  given  or  broken  for  you:  drink  ye  all 
of  this;  for  this  is  my  blood  which  is  shed  for  you:  in  which 
words,  as  Mr.  Bradford  long  ago  observed,  what  God  has 
joined,  we  are  not  to  put  asunder." 

"2.  As  di  glorified  body :  in  which  condition  it  now  sits 
at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  shall  there  continue  till  the 
restitution  of  all  things,  imparting  grace  and  influence,  and 
all  the  benefits  purchased  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  dead  body, 
to  those  that,  in  the  holy  Eucharist  most  especially,  are 


39 

through  faith  and  the  marvellous  operation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  incorporated  into  Christ,  and  so  united  to  him, 
that  they  dwell  in  Christ,  and  Christ  in  them;  they  are  one 
with  Christ  and  Christ  with  them  ;  they  are  made  members 
of  his  body,  of  his  fiesh,  and  of  his  bones;  and  by 
partaking  of  the  Spirit  of  him  their  Head,  receive  all  the 
graces  and  benefits  purchased  for  them  by  his  bitter  death 
and  passion." 

''  Wherefore  it  is  evident,  that  since  the  body  broken, 
and  blood  shed,  neither  do  nor  can  now  really  exist,  they 
neither  can  be  r^dWy  present,  nor  literally  eaten  or  drunk; 
nor  can  we  really  recejfc them, but  only  the  benefits  purchased 
by  them.  But  the  body  which  now  exists,  whereof  we 
partake,  and  to  which  we  are  united,  is  the  glorified  body; 
which  is  therefore  verily  and  indeed  received — and  by 
consequence  said  to  be  really  present,  notwithstanding  its 
/oca/ absence;  because  a  real  participation  and  union  must 
needs  imply  a  real  presence,  though  they  do  not  necessari- 
ly imply  a  local  one.  For  it  is  easy  to  conceive,  how  a  thing 
that  is  locally  absent  may  yet  be  really  received, — as  we 
commonly  say,  a  man  receives  an  estate,  or  inheritance, 
when  he  receives  the  deeds  or  conveyances  of  it.  The  re- 
'  ception  is  confessedly  real,  though  the  thing  itself  is  not  lo- 
cally or  circumscriptively  present,  or  literally  grasped  in 
the  arms  of  the  receiver.  —  The  Pi'otestants  all  agree,  that 
we  spiritually  eat  Christ's  body,  and  drink  his  blood; 
that  we  neither  eat,  nor  drink,  nor  receive  the  dead  body, 
nor  the  blood  shed,  but  only  the  benefits  purchased  by 
them;  that  those  benefits  are  derived  to  us  by  virtue  of  our 
union  and  communion  with  the  glorified  body,  and  that 
our  partaking  of  it  and  union  with  it,  is  effected  by  the 
mysterious  and  ineffable  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

"  Now  though  it  be  easy,  as  I  said  before,  to  conceive 
how  a  natural  substance  may  be  said  to  be  really  received, 
though  not  Ipcally  present,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  conceive  it 


40 

really  present^  when  at  the  same  time  it  is  locally  absent. 
Therefore  the  Church  of  England  has  wisely  forborne  to 
use  the  term  of  real  presence,  in  all  the  books  that  are  set 
forth  by  her  authority.  We  neither  find  it  recommended 
in  the  Liturgy,  nor  the  Articles,  nor  the  Homilies,  nor  the 
Church's  nor  Nowell's  Catechism.  So  that  if  any  Church 
of  England  man  use  it,  he  does  more  than  the  Church  di- 
rects him:  if  any  reject  it,  he  has  the  Church's  example  to 
warrant  him.  Yet  it  must  not  be  denied  but  the  term  may 
be  safely  used  among  scholars,  and  seems  to  be  grounded 
upon  Scripture  itself."* 

"So  much  for  the  use  of  the  word;  which  when  we  of 
the  Church  of  England  use,  we  mean  thus:  A  thing  may 
be  said  to  be  really  received,  which  is  so  consigned  to  us, 
that  we  can  really  employ  it  to  all  XhosQ  purposes  for  which 
it  is  useful  in  itself,  and  we  have  occasion  to  use  it.  And 
a  thing  thus  really  received  may  be  said  to  be  really  pre- 
sent, two  ways,  either  physically,  or  morally,  to  which 
we  reduce  sacrament  ally.  In  the  holy  Eucharist,  the 
Sacrament  is  physically,  the  res  sacramenti  morally 
present;  the  elements  antecedently  and  locally;  thevery 
body  consequentially  and  virtually,  but  both  really  pre- 
sent. When  we  say  that  Christ  is  present  in  the  Sacra- 
ment, we  do  not  mean  in  the  elements,  but  in  the  celebra- 
tion. This  doctrine  is  sufficiently  removed  from  what  is 
called  Zuinglianism,  (how  truly,  I  will  not  now  inquire,) 
for  we  do  not  hold  that  we  barely  receive  the  effects  and 
benefits  of  Christ's  body,  but  we  hold  it  really  present,  in 
as  much  as  it  is  really  received,  and  we  actually  put  in 
possession  of  it,  though  locally  absent  from  us." 

The  observations  of  Dr.  Waterland,  to  whose  elaborate 
'Review  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist'  1  am  indebted 
for  the  last  two  extracts,  are  valuable.     (Works,  Vol.  vii.  p. 

*  Here  the  author  refers  to  Matt,  jcviii.  80,  sxviii.  20, 1  Cor.  v.  Z. 


41 

192.)  "  The  sum  of  all,"  saith  he,  "  is,  that  Sacramental  or 
symbolical  feeding  in  the  Eucharist  is  feeding  upon  the  body 
broken  and  blood  shed,  under  the  signs  and  symbols  of  bread 
and  ivine:  the  result  of  such  feeding  is,  the  strengthening 
or  perfecting  our  mystical  union  with  the  body  glorified; 
and  so,  properly  speaking,  we  feed  upon  the  body  as  dead, 
and  we  receive  it  into  closer  union  as  living,  and  both  in  the 
Eucharist  when  duly  celebrated." 

Our  learned  author  proceeds  to  apply  the  doctrine  to  the 
various  parties  who  contend  for  a  different  hypothesis. 

"  1.  To  the  Romanists,"  saith  he,  "  who  plead  warmly 
for  the  very  body  and  blood  in  the  Eucharist,  we  make 
answer,  that  we  do  receive  the  very  body  and  blood,  in  it, 
and  through  it,  as  properly  as  a  man  receives  an  estate,  and 
becomes  possessed  of  an  inheritance,  by  any  deeds  or  con- 
veyances: and  what  would  they  have  more?  Will  nothing 
satisfy,  except  the  ivax  and  parchments  be  transubstantiated 
into  teira  firma,  or  every  instrument  converted  into  arable? 
Surely  this  is  pressing  points  too  far,  and  turning  things 
most  serious  into  perfect  ridicule." 

"  2.  To  the  Lutherans,  who  seem  to  contend  for  a  mixture 
of  the  visible  elements  with  the  body  invisible,  we  have  this 
to  reply,  that  we  readily  admit  of  a  Symbolical  delivery  or 
conveyance  of  one  by  the  other;  which  effectually  answers 
every  good  end  and  purpose,  and  also  suits  extremely  well 
with  the  Scripture  phraseology  in  those  cases.  And  though 
we  admit  not,  that  our  Lord's  body  is  locally  present  in  the 
Sacrament,  or  any  where  so  present  but  in  heaven;  yet  so 
long  as  it  is  really  united  in  one  mystical  body  with  ours,  or 
rather  is  considered  as  the  Head  with  the  members,  we  think 
that  may  suffice;  and  we  need  not  desire  any  closer  alliance, 
on  this  side  heaven,  than  such  an  union  amounts  to." 

"3.  To  the  Calvinists  of  the  ancient  stamp,  (if  any  such 
remain  now,)  we  might  reply,  that  though  we  eat  not 
Christ's  glorified  body  in  the  Eucharist,  yet  we  really  rs- 

12* 


42 

ceive  it  into  closer  mystical  union  than  before:  and  though 
we  know  nothing  of  the  diffusion  of  any  virtue  of  Christ's 
jiesk  (which  would  not  profit)  yet  we  have  the  power  and 
presence  of  his  Godhead  with  us,  and  at  the  same  time, 
virtual  or  mystical  union  with  his  body,  sufficient  to  make 
us,  in  Divine  construction  and  Divine  acceptance,  one  with 
him;  "For  we  are  members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and 
of  his  bones." 

"4.  To  the  Zuinglian  Sacramentarians,  old  Anabaptists, 
Socinians  and  Remonstrants,  who  will  not  admit  of  any 
medium  between  local  corporal  presence,  and  no  presence  at 
all  as  to  beneficial  effects,  no  medium  between  the  natural 
body  itself  and  mere  signs  and  figures;  to  them  we  rejoin, 
that  there  is  no  necessity  of  falling  in  with  either  extreme; 
because  there  is  a  medium,  a  very  just  one,  and  where  indeed 
the  truth  lies.  For  though  there  is  no  corporal  presence,  yet 
there  is  a  spiritual  one,  exhibitive  of  Divine  blessings  and 
graces:  and  though  we  eat  not  Christ's  natural  glorified  body 
in  the  Sacrament  or  out  of  it,  yet  our  mystical  union  with 
that  very  body  is  strengthened  and  perfected  in  and  through 
the  Sacrament,  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit." — 

"  5.  To  those  who  admit  not  that  the  natural  body  of 
Christ  is  in  any  sense  received  at  all,  but  imagine  that  the 
elements,  as  impregnated  or  animated  with  the  Spirit,  are 
the  only  body  received,  and  are  made  our  Lord's  body  by 
such  union  with  the  Spirit;  1  say,  to  those  we  make  answer, 
that  the  union  of  the  Spirit  with  the  elements  (rather  than 
with  the  persons)  appears  to  be  a  gross  notion  and  ground- 
less: and  if  it  were  admitted,  yet  could  it  not  make  the 
elements,  in  any  just  sense,  our  Lord's  body,  but  the  notion 
would  resolve  into  a  kind  of  impanation  of  the  Spirit,  for 
the  time." 

In  a  note  to  this  passage,  our  author  states  that  such 
"  seems  to  be  Mr.  Johnson's  notion,  in  the  <  Unbloody  Sac- 
rifice,' &c.,  part  1,  p.  247.     And  it  is  very  near  akin,  so 


43 

far,  to  that  of  the  modern  Greek  Church,  as  represented 
by  Mr.  Claude  in  his  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Eucharist.'* 
According  to  the  best  of  my  judgment,  it  is  the  very 
doctrine  intended  by  our  Tractarian  brethren.  And  I 
doubt  not  that  we  should  all  willingly  subscribe  to  the 
language  of  Dr.  Waterland,  that  "  the  fundamental  error  of 
this  hypothesis  (as  also  of  the  Lutheran  and  the  Romish,)  is 
the  connecting  the  grace  of  the  Sacrament  with  the  elementSy 
instead  of  looking  for  it  in  the  persons  only." 
,  I  have  deviated  somewhat  from  the  order  of  Chronology, 
by  placing  the  judgment  of  Waterland  before  that  of  Bishop 
Burnet,  whose  well-known  work  upon  the  39  Articles 
corresponds,  in  the  main,  with  all  that  I  have  cited.  A 
short  extract  will  suffice  to  show  this  clearly. 

"We  assert,"  saith  this  important  author,  speaking  for 
the  Church  of  England,  "  a  real  presence  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ;  but  not  of  his  body  as  it  is  now  glorified  in 
heaven,  but  of  his  body  as  it  was  broken  on  the  cross,  when 
his  blood  was  shed  and  separated  from  it:  that  is  to  say;  his 
death,  with  the  merits  and  effects  of  it,  are  in  a  visible  and 
federal  act  offered  in  this  Sacrament  to  all  worthy  be- 
lievers." 

"  By  real  we  understand  true,  in  opposition  both  to  fiction 
and  imagination ....  though  we  are  convinced  that  our  first 
Reformers  judged  right  concerning  the  use  of  the  phrase 
real  presence,  that  it  were  better  to  be  let  fall  than  to  be 
continued,  since  the  use  of  it,  and  that  idea  which  does 
naturally  arise  from  the  common  acceptation  of  it,  may 
stick  deeper,  and  feed  superstition  more,  than  all  those 
larger  explanations  that  are  given  to  it  can  be  able  to  cure." 
(Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  321.) 

The  long  list  of  quotations,  appended  to  the  sermon  of 
Rev.  Dr.  Pusey,  would  inspire  considerable  respect  for  the 
strength  and  number  of  his  authorities,  but  unhappily  they 
labour  under  an  imputation  of  the  same  unfairness  which  I 


44 

have  proved  in  the  cases  of  Ridley  and  Hooker.  It  must 
indeed,  be  admitted,  in  palliation  of  his  course,  that  it  had 
been  followed  by  others  before  him,  particularly  by  Arch- 
bishop Laud,  in  his  conference  with  Fisher.  This,  how- 
ever, properly  understood,  seems  to  my  mind  a  confirmation 
of  the  charge,  that  the  doctrine  held  by  our  Tractarian 
brethren  inclines  strongly  towards  Romanism.  For  the 
powerful  influence  of  his  queen  Henrietta  over  the  mind 
of  the  first  Charles,  manifestly  disposed  him,  and  perhaps, 
unconsciously,  his  favourite  Archbishop,  to  make  the- 
Church  of  England  as  much  like  the  Church  of  Rome  as 
possible.  And  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  to  his  manifest 
bias  towards  the  ceremonial  of  Rome,  which,  under  such 
high  influence,  spread  rapidly  through  her  clergy,  was 
owing,  in  a  great  degree,  the  disgust  conceived  against  the 
Church,  and  the  consequent  outbreak  and  temporary  suc- 
cess of  Puritanism.* 

On  a  fair  and  candid  comparison,  therefore,  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church,  with  the  doctrine  of  our  Tractarian 
brethren,  I  think  it  manifest  that  the  Church  confines  the 
idea  of  the  Real  Presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ 
to  ihe  faithful  receiver  of  the  Sacrament,  while  our  Tractarian 
brethren  place  that  Real  Presence  in  the  Sacrament  itself, 
that  is,  in  the  consecrated  elements,  on  the  Communion 
Table,  or  Altar.  That  when  the  Article  declares  that  the 
Body  of  Christ  is  given,  taken  and  eaten,  in  the  Supper, 
only  after  a  heavenly  and  spiritual  manner,  the  Church 
teaches  us  to  believe  that  this  divine  benefit  is  communi- 
cated by  Christ  himself  to  the  faithful  soul,  while  our  Trac- 
tarian friends  hold  that  it  is  alreadj'  'in  an  ineffable  manner' 
united  to  the  consecrated  Bread,  and  is  thus  given  to  the 
communicant  by  the  hands  of  the  minister.  That  when  the 
Catechism  declares  the  Body  and  Blood  to  be  verily  and 

*  See  Hume's  History  of  England,  for  a  full  confirmation  of  this. 


45 

indeed  taken  and  received  by  the  faithful  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  the  Church  expresses  the  grace  bestoiced  by  the 
Redeemer,  through  his  Holy  Spirit,  on  the  worthy  partaker, 
while  our  Tractarian  brethren  would  maintain  that  this 
verily  and  indeed  refers  to  the  consecrated  Symbols  in  the 
paten  and  the  chalice — that  in  some  ineffable  manner,  but 
yet  real  and  true,  the  glorified  Saviour,  Body,  Soul,  and  Di- 
vinity, are  included  in  the  bread  and  wine,  by  virtue  of  the 
act  of  consecration,  handled,  broken,  poured  forth,  and 
finally  given  to  the  Communicant  by  the  priest,  so  that  the 
Lord  does  not  fulfil  his  gracious  promise  of  entering  into 
the  faithful  heart,  except  by  first,  verily  and  indeed,  uniting 
himself  to  these  elements,  in  order  that  the  priest  may  per- 
form the  act  which  brings  the  soul  into  a  living  union  with 
its  Saviour. 

Hence  Mr.  Palmer  states  it  as  the  Church's  doctrine, 
that  the  outward  Sacrament  "  is  not  a  sisn  of  an  absent 
body,"  misquoting  the  Homily,  which  declares,  that  it  is 
not  an  untrue  sign  of  an  absent  body,  by  which  unfortunate 
omission  of  this  word  'untrue '  he  changes  the  whole  mean- 
ing of  the  sentence. 

Hence  he  saith  that  "  God  withdraws  his  divine  gift" 
from  those  who  are  totally  devoid  of  a  true  and  living  faith; 
taking  it  for  granted,  that  this  divine  gift  was  first  placed 
in  the  hand  of  the  priest,  since  it  was  really  present  in  the 
elements,  and  therefore  that  the  unworthy  would  actually 
receive  it,  if  the  Almighty  Redeemer  did  not  withdraw 
himself,  by  a  special  and  subsequent  act,  from  the  touch  of 
the  profane. 

Hence,  too,  he  pronounces  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
that  'the  wicked  and  such  as  be  void  of  a  lively  faith  do 
not  receive  Christ,'  although  they  take  the  Sacrament,  to  be 
only  "the  more  pious  and  probable  opinion,"  From 
which  it  is  to  be  inferred,  that  the  contrary  opinion  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  pious  and  probable,  only  that  the  opinion 


46 

of  our  article  is  more  pious  and  probable.  Where  this  learned 
and  ingenious  theologian  discovered  that  he  was  at  liberty 
to  hold  a  positive  statement  of  Christian  doctrine  in  the 
Articles  to  be  no  more  than  an  ''opinion,'^  he  has  not  in- 
formed us.  Eut  it  is  evident  that  the  inference  which  I 
have  supplied  may  be  even  more  favourable  than  the  true 
one.  For  there  are  three  degrees  of  comparison,  and  our 
author  may  place  some  other  opinion  in  the  PosUive,  and 
the  doctrine  of  Rome  in  the  Superlative,  if  he  pleases, 
without  in  the  least  disturbing'  the  arrangement  of  his 
System. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  Mr,  Palmer  consents  to  the  Ar- 
ticles in  rejecting  transubstantiation,  and  asserting  that  the 
nature  of  the  bread  and  wine  remains.  But  he  appears  to 
be  in  a  diificulty  about  the  inevitable  consequences,  and 
therefore  he  admits  these  propositions  under  limitations 
which  open  a  wide  door  of  escape  from  the  true  doctrine 
of  the  Church. 

Hence  he  defines  transubstantiation  to  be  "  the  change  of 
the  substance  which  supposes  the  nature  of  bread  entirely 
to  cease  by  consecration,"  From  this  it  is  sufficiently  ob- 
vious, that  if  the  nature  of  bread  does  not  entirely  cease, — if, 
for  example,  the  nature  of  bread  continues  in  the  form,  co- 
lour, weight,  smell,  and  taste,  which  the  Romanists  them- 
selves allow  under  the  name  of  accidents — there  seems  no- 
thing to  prevent  Mr.  Palmer's  hypothesis  from  recon- 
ciling the  Article  with  the  doctrine  of  Rome,  Only  leaving 
out  the  mere  term  transubstantiation,  as  was  done  in  the 
time  of  Henry  VIII.  And  that  such  must  be  his  meaning 
appears  but  too  evident  from  his  startling  assertion,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  has  undergone  no  very  material 
change  since  that  day. 

Hence  too,  when  he  admits  that  the  Church  holds  the 
presence,  and  therefore  the  eating  of  Christ's  Body  and 
Blood  in  the  Lord'3  Supper,  according  tq  the  Article,  to 


47 

be  "altogether  heavenly  and  spiritual,"  he  exhibits  the 
same  kind  of  skill  in  defining  the  words  to  mean  a  kind  of 
presence  and  eating  "  which  is  inexplicable  by  any  carnal 
or  earthly  experience  or  imagination;  even  as  the  Sonship 
of  the  Eternal  Word  of  God,  and  His  incarnation,  and  the 
procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  immeasurable  by  human 
understanding."  Thus  limited,  or  paraphrased,  or  rather, 
as  it  seems  to  my  mind,  refined  away,  it  is  perfectly  ma- 
nifest that  Mr.  Palmer  finds  nothing  in  the  Article  which 
might  not  be  subscribed  ex  animo  by  a  Roman  Catholic 
himself. 

And,  in  perfect  consistency  with  the  rest,  our  ingenious 
author,  when  stating,  according  to  the  Article,  that  the 
Church  rejects  the  doctrine  of  the  corporal  presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  is  careful  to  call  it,  "any  such  real 
presence  of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  as  is  corporal  or  or- 
ganical;  that  is,  accot'ding  to  the  known  and  earthly 
•mode  of  existence  of  a  body^  Here  again,  he  reduces 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  to  a  proposition  which  no  Ro- 
manist could  censure.  The  divines  of  Rome,  in  her  most 
corrupt  days,  never  pretended  to  say  that  the  corporal  pre- 
sence of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  was  ^^ according  to  the  known 
and  earthly  mode  of  existence,^'  but  quite  the  contrary.  Thus  it 
is,  that  this  eminent  writer  bends  his  talents  and  his  learning 
to  reduce  our  theology  to  a  set  of  distiiictions  without  a 
difference,  all  agreeing,  it  must  be  confessed,  with  his 
counsel,  that  an  English  Episcopalian  ought  to  desire  Com- 
munion with  Rome,  if  he  were  resident  in  any  part  of  the 
world  where  Rome  had  the  prior  and  peaceable  possession  ; 
but  all  sadly  variant,  in  my  humble  judgment,  from  the 
Standards  of  the  Church,  and  the  principles  of  the  Refor- 
mation. 

I  see  nothing,  therefore,  in  the  elaborate  statement  con- 
cerning the  holy  Eucharist,  which  Mr.  Palmer  has  set  forth 
at  large,  and  which  Dr.  Pusey  has  appended  to  his  sermon, 
in  any  wise  restrictive  of  his  first  broad  proposition,  tha^- 


48 

"  the  body  or  flesh,  and  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Crea- 
tor and  Redeemer  of  the  world,  both  God  and  man,  united 
indivisibly  in  one  Person,  are  verily  and  indeed  given, 
taken,  eaten,  and  received  by  the  faithful  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  under  the  outward  sign  or  form  of  bread  and 
wine;  which  is,  on  this  account,  the  partaking  or  Commu- 
nion of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ;  that  the  Eucharist 
is  not  the  sign  of  an  absent  body,  and  that  those  who  par- 
take of  it  receive  not  merely  the  figure  or  shadow  of 
Christ's  body,  but  the  reality  itself.  And  as  Christ's  di- 
vine and  human  natures  are  inseparably  united,  so  we  re- 
ceive in  the  Eucharist,  not  only  the  flesh  and  blood  of 
Christ,  but  Christ  himself,  both  God  and  man."  For  after 
ingeniously  refining  away,  as  we  have  seen,  the  qualifica- 
tions of  this  proposition,  which  might  have  reconciled  it 
with  the  true  sense  of  the  reformers,  he  proceeds  to  say, 
that  the  consecration  of  the  elements  "o/?era/e5  a  real 
change.  For  when  the  Sacrament  is  thus  perfected, 
the  Church  regards  it  as  so  'divine  a  thing,'  so  'heavenly 
a  food,'  as  that  we  must  not  ^presume '  to  approach  it  with 
unprepared  minds,  and  that  sinners,  although  they  only 
partake  of  the  bread  and  wine,  partake  of  them  to  their 
own  condemnation,  because  they  impiously  disregard  the 
Lord's  Body,  which  is  truly  present  in  that  Sacrament. 
Hence  it  is  that  the  Church,  believing  firmly  in  the  real 
presence  of  the 'precious  and  blessed  Body  and  Blood  of 
our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,'  speaks  of  the  Eucharist  as  '  high 
and  holy  mysteries,'  exhorts  us  to  consider  the  dignity  of 
that  holy  '  mystery,'  that '  heavenly  feast,'  that '  holy  table,' 
'  and  banquet  of  that  most  heavenly  food,  even  the  King 
of  kings'  table.'  And  a  little  farther  on,  although  he  ad- 
mits that  the  tenet  of  Transubstantiation  "  has  the  fatal  de- 
fect of  being  opposed  to  the  plain  language  of  Scripture," 
yet  he  introduces  this  by  the  following  startling  statement: 
"  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  Roman  doctrine  of  Tran- 
substantiation facilitates  the  mental  conception  of  that  mys- 


49 

tery/'  (sc.  the  Eucharistic  doctrine.)  0  how  discordant  is 
all  this  from  the  language  of  Cranmer,  and  Ridley,  and 
Latimer,  and  Bradford,  and  the  whole  of  that  blessed  army 
of  martyrs!  How  opposite  to  the  teaching  of  Jewel  and 
Hooker!  How  much  more  sympathy  and  concord  does  it 
plainly  manifest  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  than  with  the 
Church  of  England! 

But  there  is  yet  another  aspect  of  this  matter,  in  which 
thecharacter  of  the  new  Tractarian  divinity  is  discernible.  1 
refer  to  the  passage  in  which  our  learned  author  speaks  of  the 
adoration  of  the  Host  in  the  Church  of  Rome.*  "If  Christ," 
saith  he,  "  be  in  a  special  and  mysterious  manner  present 
in  these  'iioly  mysteries,'  as  the  infinite  majority  of  Chris- 
tians have  at  all  times  firmly  and  fervently  believed,  ac- 
cording to  the  more  simple  and  unrestrained  interpretation 
of  Holy  Scripture;  the  truly  religious  man  cannot  but  be 
profoundly  impressed  with  sentiments  of  awe  and  venera- 
tion in  the  more  immediate  presence  of  the  Divine  Saviour 
of  the  world.  He  will  feel  with  the  patriarch:  'How 
dreadful  is  this  place,'  'this  is  none  other  but  the  house  of 
God,  and  this  is  the  gate  of  heaven.'  Nor  will  he  need  the 
voice  of  God  to  say:  'Put  ofi"  thy  shoes  from  thy  feet,  for 
the  place  whereon  thou  standest  is  holy  ground.'  Now 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  of  those  who  intended 
their  worship  at  the  elevation  to  be  directed  to  Christ,  as 
more  immediately  present  in  the  holy  Eucharist,  many  di- 
rected it  simply  to  Christ  himself,  and  not  to  the  external 
part  of  the  Sacrament,  whether  substance  or  species.  And 
such  men  could  not  be  properly  charged  with  idolatry,  be- 
cause their  worship  was  not  directed  to  an  idol,  nor  to  a 
false  god,  nor  to  a  creature.  It  is  clear,  hoivever,  that 
others  have  worshipped  the  elements  themselves  with  di- 
vine honour,  as  our  writers  have  shown,  and  those  loho 
did  so  canjiot  be  excused  from  the  guilt  of  idolatry.   But 

•  Vol.  i.  p.  314. 
13 


50 

this  imputation  cannot  justly  rest  either  on  the  whole 
Western  Church  before  the  Reformation,  or  on  the  Ro- 
man Churches  in  general  since,  as  bishops  Bramhall,  Jere- 
my Taylor,  &c.  have  taught." 

Now  here,  at  least  to  my  own  feelings,  is  a  very  painful 
specimen  of  paralogism.  For  I  cannot  believe  that  the  ele- 
ments were  ever  worshipped  by  the  Romanists,unless  under 
the  erroneous  belief  that  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord  was  actually 
jjresent  in  them,  and  if  such  was  their  belief,  their  worship 
was  mentally  directed  to  Christ  himself  so  far  as  their 
intention  was  concerned,  and  therefore  the  author's  apolo- 
gy would  justify  them  from  the  guilt  of  idolatry.  But  in- 
asmuch as  this  reasoning  would  too  openly  condemn  the 
Church  of  England,  who  had  repeatedly  charged  idolatry 
in  this  matter  upon  the  Church  of  Rome,  he  makes  a  for- 
mal and  general  statement,  without  authority,  that  some 
persons  in  that  Church  icorshipped  the  elements  themselves ; 
which  loas  indeed  idolatry,  and  under  cover  of  this  assertion, 
he  discharges  the  Church  of  Rome  from  all  blame,  allowing 
the  lawfulness  of  their  prostration  before  the  Host,  on  the 
ground  that  the  worship  may  be  directed  to  Christ  himself, 
^  whom  the  infinite  majority  of  Christians  have  at  all  times 
firmly  and  fervently  believed  to  be  present  in  these  holy  myste- 
ries, in  a  special  and  mysterious  manner.'' 

In  no  one  of  these  statements,  however,  do  I  see  how  Mr. 
Palmer  can  be  fairly  reconciled  to  the  Church  of  England. 
Not  in  his  exoneration  of  the  Church  of  Rome  from  idola- 
try;  for  this  is  charged  upon  her  by  the  Homilies,  the  Ar- 
ticles, and  the  Reformers,  again  and  again.  Not  in  his 
confident  assurance  that  the  infinite  majority  of  Christians 
have  at  all  times  firmly  and  fervently  believed  that  Christ 
himself  was  present  in  the  holy  mysteries,  (meaning  the 
consecrated  elements,)  in  a  special  and  mysterious  manner. 
For  ihe  Church  of  England  maintains  that  this  mystical 
presence  of  Christ  is  in  the  soul  of  the  faithful  receiver,  and 
not  in  the  consecrated  sign  or  symbol,  as  held  up  in  the 


51 

hands  of  the  priest.  Not  in  his  notion  that  the  Sacrament 
cannot  be  an  idol,  to  those  who  erroneously  worship  it, 
under  the  belief  that  Christ  is  there.  Because  their  error 
in  so  believing  does  not  change  the  real  character  of  the 
object  of  their  worship.  The  Israelites  committed  idola- 
try when  they  worshipped  the  golden  calf,  although  they 
seem  to  have  intended  nothing  more  than  the  honouring  of 
the  true  God;  for  they  said:  "  These  he  thy  gods,  O  Israel, 
which  brought  thee  up  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.^'  The  hea- 
then committed  idolatry  in  worshipping  the  statue  of  Ju- 
piter, although  they  erroneously  believed  that  in  that  sta- 
tue, after  consecration,  was  actually  contained  the  essential 
Deity  of  the  almighty  Father  of  gods  and  men.  And  ac- 
cording to  the  main  body  of  English  theologians,  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  idolatrous  in  worshipping  the  Host, 
notwithstanding  the  false  idea,  that  it  has  been  transubstan- 
tiated into  the  actual  Body  of  the  Redeemer.  How  far 
this  erroneous  notion  may  palliate  their  idolatry  before  the 
Searcher  of  hearts,  it  is  not  for  us  to  say.  But  we  can 
certainly  say,  that  as  it  is  idolatry  to  pay  divine  worship  to 
any  being,  other  than  the  only  living  and  true  God,  the 
Romanist  cannot  fairly  escape  from  the  imputation  of  this 
deadly  sin,  merely  because  he  falsely  attributes  to  a  conse- 
crated wafer,  the  personal  Deity  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ; 
for  this  would  be  to  get  rid  of  the  idolatry,  by  virtue  of  a 
lie.  The  other  side  of  the  argument  would  indeed  be  more 
agreeable  to  our  feelings  of  Christian  compassion  towards 
our  mistaken  brethren.  But  the  insurmountable  objection 
to  it  lies  in  this:  that  if  the  erroneous  conception  of  the 
worshipper  in  supposing  his  idol  to  be  divine,  be  sufficient 
to  sanctify  the  object  of  his  worship,  there  never  could 
have  been  any  idolatry  since  the  world  began. 

There  is,  however,  one  aspect  of  this  matter,  which  has 
pressed  upon  my  mind  with  peculiar  force,  as  worthy  of 
grave  reflection.     It  must  be  granted,  I  presume,  that  the 


53 

guilt  of  idolatry  rests,  in  its  highest  and  most  awful  aspect, 
upon  those  who  make  the  idol,  rather  than  on  tliose  who 
worship  it,  confiding  in  the  false  assertions  of  their  leaders. 
Now  I  would  earnestly  beseech  my  respected  brethren, 
who  are  so  indulgent  to  this  perilous  error  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  that  they  would  seriously  consider  whether  they 
are  not  making  an  idol,  by  thus  exalting  the  outward  sym- 
bol of  the  Saviour's  Body  into  a  present  Deity.  For  whether 
there  be  any  elevation  by  the  Priest,  or  any  prostration  by 
the  people,  the  idolatry  of  the  heart  may  be  as  surely  in- 
troduced, and  then  the  evils  of  superstition  will  as  surely 
follow. 

I  am  aware,  indeed,  that  the  idolatry  which  our  Church 
charges  upon  Rome  on  account  of  this  adoration  of  the 
Host,  is  supposed,  by  most  persons,  to  be  altogether  impos- 
sible, so  long  as  we  reject  their  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion.  But  here  lies  a  palpable  error.  The  most  important 
point  in  the  whole  eucharistic  controversy,  according  to  my 
humble  judgment,  does  not  concern  the  absence  of  the 
Bread,  but  the  supposed  presence  of  the  Saviour's  Body. 
The  very  reason  why  the  Romanists  insisted  on  the  dis- 
appearance of  the  bread,  was  because  they  thought  they 
could  not  otherwise  inculcate  the  presence  of  the  Body, 
under  the  not  unreasonable  notion,  that  two  different  sub- 
stances could  not  occupy  the  same  place  at  the  same  time. 
And  therefore,  if  our  Oxford  friends  can  persuade  the 
Church  to  believe,  that  Christ  Jesus,  in  a  spiritual  Body, 
together  with  his  Soul  and  Divinity,  is  just  as  really  and 
positively  exhibited  upon  the  altar  and  held  in  the  hands 
of  the  priest,  and  received  into  the  mouth  of  the  worship- 
per, upon  their  hypothesis,  without  transubstantiation,  as 
upon  the  Roman  hypothesis  with  it,  where  is  the  difference 
in  any  point  which  is  of  importance  either  to  faith  or 
practice? 

In  the  one  case,  indeed,  Christ  is  supposed  to  be  in  the 


53 

consecrated  elements  with  a  fleshly  body.  In  the  other, 
he  is  supposed  to  be  in  them  with  a  spiritual  body.  But 
surely  it  is  not  on  account  of  his  flesh  that  we  worship  him, 
but  by  reason  of  his  Deity,  which  is  supposed  to  be  equally 
present  by  either  doctrine.  Of  course  it  results,  that  since 
the  Sacrament  contains  the  real  object  of  worship  as  per- 
fectly according  to  the  doctrine  of  Oxford,  as  according  to 
the  dogma  of  Rome,  the  same  adoration  must  be  equally 
due;  and  the  communicant,  thus  believing,  is  equally  bound 
to  worship  it  accordingly. 

It  is  likewise  granted,  that  in  the  one  case  the  sacred 
presence  of  the  divine  Redeemer  is  supposed  to  be  in- 
cluded under  the  substance  of  the  bread,  and  in  the  other 
case  it  is  supposed  to  be  included  under  the  outward  ac- 
cidenls,  the  taste,  the  form,  the  colour,  &c.  But  this  dis- 
tinction is  of  small  account  in  the  main  doctrine.  The 
miracle  is  equally  great  in  either  case,  or  rather  it  is  a  little 
greater  on  the  Tractarian  theory,  because,  as  Mr.  Palmer 
honestly  confesses,  transubstantiation  ''facilitates  the  men- 
tal conception  of  the  mystery."  Nor,  indeed,  is  it  at  all 
admissible,  in  my  poor  judgment,  that  while  the  Church 
throughout  the  world  has  always  maintained  the  insepara- 
ble indivisibility  of  the  human  from  the  Divine  nature,  in 
the  One  Person  of  the  adorable  Redeemer,  theologians 
should  be  permitted  to  inculcate  the  notion,  that  He  can  be 
really  present,  in  his  human  and  divine  nature,  in  the  con- 
secrated elements,  and  yet  not  be  present  in  his  flesh,  or 
corporally.  Our  respected  friends  of  Oxford  are  satisfied 
with  calling  this  a  mystery,  ineffable  and  inexplicable. 
I  fully  believe  with  them  that  it  is  ineffable  and  inexplica- 
ble; but  instead  of  a  mystery,  it  looks,  to  my  mind,  much 
more  like  a  palpable  contradiction.  And  therefore  I  must 
frankly  say,  that  if  I  were  compelled  to  make  my  election 
between  the  doctrine  of  Rome  and  the  new  doctrine  of 
Oxford,  I  should  take  transubstantiation  as  the  more  rea- 

13* 


54 

sonable  of  the  two.  Thank  God!  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other. 

If  it  should  still  be  thought,  however,  that  the  substance 
of  the  bread,  according  to  the  Oxford  doctrine,  must  be 
a  sufficient  hinderance  to  the  act  of  adoration,  I  beg  to  ask 
on  what  principle?  Surely  it  cannot  be  doubted,  that  the 
real,  \ocd\  presence  of  our  Divine  Redeemer  must  be  honoured 
by  our  adoration,  without  regard  to  the  material  substance 
under  which  he  becomes  manifest  to  our  faith.  When  he 
tabernacled  with  men,  his  garments  formed  a  far  larger 
mass,  and  were  no  more  objects  of  worship  in  themselves, 
than  the  consecrated  bread  of  the  Sacrament.  Yet  who 
supposes  that  the  presence  of  those  garments  caused  the 
adoration  of  his  suppliants  to  cease? 

But  our  respected  brethren  would  not  be  satisfied  with 
claiming  for  their  doctrine  the  sanction  of  the  Church  of 
England:  they  also  challenge  on  its  behalf  the  clear  and 
unanimous  suffrages  of  the  fathers,  and  I  should  do  injus- 
tice to  the  subject,  therefore,  if  I  did  not  exhibit  what 
seems  to  my  mind  a  sufficient  amount  of  evidence  to  con- 
fute this  error. 

Commencing  with  Clement  of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  192, 
wc  find  him  selling  forth  a  very  clear  and  satisfactory  ac- 
count of  our  subject.     He  states  [I]  that  "  the  blood  of  our 

[1]  Clem.  Alex.  Psedag.  Lib.  11.  p.  151.  B.  Duplex  est  autem  Sanguis 
Domini:  alter  enim  est  carnalis,  quo  redempti  sumus  ab  interitu:  alter 
vero  spiritualis  quo  scilicet  uncti  sumus.  Et  hoc  est  bibere  Jesu  san- 
guinem,  esse  participem  incorruptionis  Domini.  Verbi  autem  virtus 
est  spiritus,  quemadmodum  sanguis  carnis.  Apta  itaque  proportione  et 
convenientia,  vinum  quidem  aquae,  homini  vero  Spiritus  admiscetur. 
Ac  temperatum  quidem  vinum  ad  fidem,  convivio  excipit:  Spiritus  au- 
tem deducit  ad  incorruptionem.  Amborum  autem  temperatura,  potus 
scilicet  et  verbi,  dicitur  Eucharistia.  quas  et  laudatur,  et  bona  est  gratia; 
cujus  qui  per  fidem  sunt  participes,  sanctificantur  et  corpore  et  anima, 
cum  divinum  temperamentum,  hominem  scilicet,  divina  voluntas  Spi- 
rilu  et  Verbo  mystice  contemperaverit.  Etenim  vere  quidem  Spiritus 
aniniffi  quse  ab  ipso  fertur,  conjungitur  et  familiaris  efficitur;  caro  autem 
Verbo,  propter  quam  Verbum  caro  factum  est. 


55 

Lord  is  twofold,  one  carnal,  by  which  we  are  redeemed 
from  destruction,  the  other  spiritual,  with  which  we  are 
anointed.  To  drink  the  blood  of  Christ  is  to  be  a  par- 
taker of  our  Lord's  incorruption.  But  the  vigour  of  the 
Word  is  Spirit,  as  the  vigour  of  the  flesh  is  blood.  As 
the  wine  in  due  proportion  is  added  to  the  water,  so  is  the 
Spirit  to  the  man.  And  as  the  wine,  duly  administered, 
is  taken  in  the  feast,  the  Spirit  is  received  to  incorruption. 
The  admixture  of  the  wine  and  the  word  is  called  the 
Eucharist,  whicli  is  a  good  gift  and  praiseworthy,  since 
those  who  partake  of  it  through  faith,  are  sanctified  in 
body  and  in  soul,  when  the  divine  will  mystically  operates 
upon  the  receiver.  For  truly  the  Spirit  becomes  united 
to  the  soul,  while  the  flesh  is  united  to  the  Word,  because 
the  Word  was  made  flesh." 

Here,  ail  is  simple  and  consistent.  The  elements  are 
spoken  of  as  consecrated  symbols,  and  the  sacred  effects  are 
spiritual,  the  operation  of  Christ  and  the  Spirit  upon  the 
faithful  and  worthy  recipient. 

From  Clement,  1  pass  on  to  Tertullian,  who  flourished 
a  little  later,  A.  D.  200.  Disputing  against  the  heretic 
Marcion,  who  insisted  that  the  senses  were  not  to  be  be- 
lieved with  regard  to  the  outward  appearance  of  our  Lord's 
human  nature,  his  sufferings  and  death,  Tertullian  presses 
his  adversary  with  the  following  argument:  [2]  "  If  I  am 
deceived  with  respect  to  the  outward,  shall  I  believe  him 
concerning  the  inward  substance?  How  shall  he  be  true  in 
what  is  concealed,  when  he  is  found  to  be  so  fallacious  in 
what  is  open?"  Now  this  argument  might  have  been 
triumphantly  retorted  by  Marcion  and  all  the  Gnostic  he- 
retics, if  the  tenet  of  our  Oxford  friends  had  then  been  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church.    For  what  is  the  testimony  of  the 

[2]  Tertul.adv.  Marcion.  p  401.  An  credam  ei  de  interiore  substantia, 
qui  sit  de  exteriore  frustratus?  Quomodo  verax  habebitur  in  occulto, 
tarn  fallax  repertus  in  aperto? 


56 

senses  worth,  if  we  are  to  believe,  that  the  consecrated  bread, 
in  the  hand  of  the  priest,  has  actually  become  the  present, 
incarnate,  glorified  Redeemer? 

Again,  saith  the  same  Tertullian,  directly  to  the  point: 
[3]  "For  thus  God  has  revealed  it  in  the  Gospel,  calling  the 
bread  his  body,  that  henceforth  you  may  understand  that 
he  gave  to  bread  the  figure  of  his  body,  which  body  the  pro- 
phet had  in  times  past  spoken  of  under  the  figure  of  bread, 
the  Lord  himself  being  about  to  interpret  it  in  this  Sacra- 
ment." 

Again,  [4]*'  Taking  bread,  and  distributing  it  to  his  dis- 
ciples, he  made  it  his  body,  by  saying,  This  is  my  body, 
that  is,  the  figure  of  my  body." 

In  like  manner,  Tertullian  interprets  the  prophet  Ma- 
lachi  in  a  manner  totally  variant  from  the  hypothesis  of  our 
Tractarian  brethren,  who  symbolize  with  Rome  in  the  no- 
tion of  the  Eucharist  being  a  sacrifice.  [5]  "  From  the  rising 
of  the  sun,  saith  the  prophet,  unto  the  setting  of  the  same, 
my  name  is  glorified  amongst  the  nations,  and  in  every 
place  sacrifice  is  offered  unto  my  name,  and  a  clean  sacri- 
fice; to  wit,"  saith  Tertullian,  "  simple  prayer  from  a  pure 
conscience." 

Origen  will  next  furnish  us  with  a  very  plain  testimony. 
For  he  tells  us  in  one  place,  [6]  that  "  the  bread  of  Jesus 

[3]  lb.  408.  Sic  enim  Deus  in  Evangelio  revelavit,  panem  corpus 
suum  appellans,  ut  et  hinc  jam  eum  intelligas  corporis  sui  figuram  pani 
dedisse,  cujjas  retro  corpus  in  panem  Prophetes  figuravit,  ipso  Domino 
hoc  sacramentum  postea  interpretaturo. 

[4]  lb.  p.  457,  §  xl.  Acceptum  panem,  et  distributum  discipulis,  cor- 
pus  ilium  suum  fecit,  hoc  est  corpus  meum  dicendo,  id  est,  figura  cor- 
poris mci, 

[5]  lb.  413.  A  solis  ortu  usque  ad  occasum  glorificatum  est  in  nation- 
ibus  nomen  meum,  et  in  omni  loco  sacrificium  nomini  meo  ofFertur,  et 
sacrificium  mundum,  scilicet,  simplex  oratio  de  conscientia  pura. 

[6]  Origenis  in  Jeremiam,  Horn.  X.  Tom.  I.  p.  108.  Fanis  Jesu  quo 
nutrimur,  sermo  ejus  interpretatur. 


57 

with  which  we  are  fed  is  to  be  interpreted  his  WonV  And 
elsewhere,  commenting  on  our  Lord's  instructions,  he  saith 
[7]  that  "  the  bread  is  consecrated  by  the  Word  of  God  and 
prayer,  and  that  through  the  prayer  offered  over  it,  accord- 
ing to  the  proportion  of  faith,  it  is  useful  to  purify  and  clear 
the  mind."  He  adds  that  "  he  who  eats  it  worthily  before 
God  is  not  helped  by  the  material  bread,  but  by  the  prayer 
offered  over  it,  and  thus  much  may  suffice,"  saith  he,  "con- 
cerning the  typical  and  symbolical  body." 

From  Origen,  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  we 
may  pass  to  his  cotemporary  Cyprian,  from  whom  the  same 
doctrine  may  be  gathered  without  difficulty.  For  having 
occasion  [8]  to  reprove  the  error  of  some  persons  who  cele- 

[7]  Origcnis  Com.  in  Mat.  Tom.  J.  p.  254.  Quod  si  verum  id,  omne  quod 
intrat  in  as,  in  ventrem  vadit,  et  in  secessum  emiltilur,  et  cibus  ipse  per  ver- 
bum  Dei  et  orationem  consecratus,  secundum  illud  quidein  ipsum  quod 
materia  constat,  in  ventrem  abit,  et  in  secessum  ejicitur;  secundum  ora- 
tionem autem  quce  illi  ^ccessM,  juxta  ■proporlionem  fidei,  utilis  fit,  efficit- 
que  ut  perspicax  fiat  animus,  spectans  ad  id  quod  prodest;  nee  panis  ma- 
teria, sed  super  eum  prolata  oratio,  ea  est  quae  ilium  juvat,  qui  non  in- 
digne  Deo  hunc  comedit.  Et  htec  quidem  de  typico  et  symbolico  cor- 
pore, 

[8j  S.  Cypriani  Ep.  LXIII.  ad  Cascilium  de  Sacramento  Domini  calicis, 
p.  118-9.  Miror  satis  unde  hoc  usurpatura  sit,  ut  contra  Evangelicain  et 
Apostolicam  disciplinam  quibusdam  in  locis  aqua  ofFeratur  in  Dominico 
calice,  quae  sola  Christi  sanguinem  non  possit  exprimere — p.  119.  Aquas 
namque  populos  significare,  in  Apocalypsis  Scriptura  divina  declarat  di- 
cens:  Aquas  quas  vidisti,  super  quas  sedet  meretrix  ilia,  popu]i,et  turbsB, 
et  gentes  ethnicorum  sunt  et  linguae.  Quod  scilicet  perspicimus  et  in 
Sacramento  calicis  contineri.  Nam  quia  nos  omnes  portabat  Christus, 
qui  et  peccata  nostra  portabat;  videmus  in  aqua  populum  intelligi,  in 
vino  vero  ostendit  sanguinem  Christi.  Quando  autem  in  calice  vino 
aqua  miscetur,  Christo  populus  adunatur,  et  credentium  plebs,  ei  in 
quem  credidit,  copulatur  et  conjungitur.  Quae  copulatio  et  conjunctio 
aquae  et  vini  sic  miscetur  in  calice  Domini,  ut  commixto  ilia  non  possit 
ab  invicem  separari.  Unde  Ecclesiam,  id  est,  plebem  in  Ecclesia  con- 
stitutam  fideliter  et  firmiter  in  eo  quod  credidit  perseverantem,  nulla  res 
separare  poterit  a  Christo,  quominus  haereat  semper  et  maneat  individua 
dilectio.  Sic  autem  in  sanctificando  calice  Domini  offerri  aqua  sola  non 
potest,  quoniodo  nee  vinum  solum  potest,  nam  si  vinum  tantum  quis 


58 

brated  the  sacrament  with  water  alone,  he  explains  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Church  in  mixing  water  with  wine,  saying,  that 
by  the  water  was  to  be  understood  the  people,  while  the 
wine  showed  the  blood  of  Christ;  that  when  these  were 
mingled  together,  Christ  was  joined  and  united  with  his 
people,  and  that  as  the  wine  could  not  be  afterwards  sepa- 
rated from  the  water,  so  neither  could  believers,  perse- 
vering, be  separated  from  their  Saviour.  He  concludes  by 
saying  that  "in  sanctifying  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  it  is  not 
proper  to  offer  either  water  or  wine  alone,  since  if  any  one 
offers  wine  alone,  the  blood  of  Christ  begins  to  be  without  us  : 
but  if  the  water  be  alone,  the  people  begin  to  be  ivithout  Christ; 
but  when  each  is  thoroughly  mingled  with  the  other,  then 
the  spiritual  and  celestial  sacrament  is  perfected." 

Now  in  this  passage  of  Cyprian,  we  may  plainly  per- 
ceive that  he  considered  the  consecrated  wine  as  a  figure 
of  the  blood,  because  he  speaks  of  it  precisely  as  he  does  of 
the  water,  which  is  manifestly  a  figurative  expression  for 
the  people,  since  no  one  ever  imagined  that  the  communi- 
cants were  actually  present  in  the  chalice,  unless  in  the  sense 
of  an  emblematic  representation.  The  necessary  inference 
is,  that  he  considered  the  eucharistic  elements  as  sacred 
symbols  of  the  spiritual  benefits  assured  to  the  faithful  and 
persevering,  in  the  inseparable  union  accomplished  between 
Christ  and  the  soul.  And  yet,  while  it  is  demonstrably  evi- 
dent that  this  was  his  meaning,  he  uses  such  terms  as  would 
make  him  an  authority  on  the  other  side,  if  it  had  not  been 
for  the  signification  of  the  water,  which  serves  as  a  key  to 
the  whole.  From  this  we  may  further  learn  the  current 
usage  of  the  early  Christians,  who  spake  and  wrote  without 
any  fear  of  misapprehension  from  the  figurative  language 

oiferat,  sanguis  Christi  incipit  esse  sine  nobis:  si  vero  aqua  sit  sola, 
plebs  incipit  esse  sine  Ghristo:  quando  autemutrunque  miscetur,  et  adu- 
natione  confusa  sibi  inviceni  copulatur,  tunc  s^craii)enti4m  ppirjtale  et 
pcejpste  perficitiir, 


59 

which  they  employed.  They  would,  doubtless,  have  qua- 
lified their  statements,  on  many  occasions,  if  they  could 
have  imagined  the  possibility  of  such  a  doctrine  as  Tran- 
substantiation. 

I  may  next  set  forth  a  sentence  from  Eusebius,  who 
flourished  in  the  early  part  of  the  4th  century.  He  speaks 
(9)  of  "the  memorial  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Christ  being  cele- 
brated at  the  table,  by  certain  signs  (or  symbols)  of  his  body 
and  saving  blood,  according  to  the  institution  of  the  New 
Testament."  And  after  quoting  the  Psalmist,  saying:  Thou 
hast  prepared  a  table  before  me  against  them  which  afflicted 
me,  &c.,  he  then  adds,  "Plainly  therefore  the  Psalmist 
signifies,  in  these,  the  mystical  anointing,  and  the  tremen- 
dous sacrifices  of  the  table  of  Christ,  operating  with  which, 
we  are  taught  to  offer  ourselves  unbloody,  rational,  and  accep- 
table victims  in  our  ichole  life  to  the  Supreme  God,  through 
that  most  highly  exalted  High  Priest  of  our  profession." 
Here  again  we  find  the  consecrated  elements  termed  signs 
or  srjmbols,  and  the  spiritual  anointing,  and  the  practical  re- 
sult, are  both  set  forth  with  force  and  clearness. 

Next  to  Eusebius,  comes  the  testimony  of  Athanasius, 
which  is  the  more  interesting  on  account  of  his  successful 
zeal  in  the  great  Arian  controversy.  The  passage  occurs 
in  a  comment  on  part  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  (10)  where  our 

(9)  Euseh.  Dem.  Evan  L.  I.  p.  39.  Cum  ergo  hujus  sacrificii  memo- 
riara  signis  quibusdam  in  mensa  celebrandam,  corporisque  item  illius, 
salutarisque  sanguinis,  ut  novi  Testamenti  institutum  habet,  acceperi- 
mus:  rursus  a  propheta  David  instruimur  ad  dicendum;  Parasti  in  con- 
spectu  raeo  mensam  contra  eos  qui  affligunt  me.  Pingue  fecisti  in  oleo 
caput  meum,  et  calix  tuus  inebriane  quam  prsEstantissimus.  Palam  igi- 
tur  in  his  mysticam  significat  unctionem,  et  horrorem  afferentia  mensca 
Christ!  sacrificia,  quibus  operantes,  incruentas  et  rationales,  eique  sua- 
ves  victirnas,  in  tota  vita  supremo  Deo  ofFerre,  per  eminentissimum  om- 
nium ipsius  Pontificem,  edocti  sumus. 

(10)  S.Mhan.  in  illud  Evangelii,  Quicumque  dixerit.  Tom.  I.  p.  979,  B. 
Istiusmodi  characterem  etiam  in  Johannis  Evangelic  vidi,  ubi  de  esu 


60 

Lord,  replying  to  the  cavils  of  the  Jews,  (who  understood 
literally  what  he  had  declared  concerning  the  eating  of  his 
flesh  and  drinking  of  his  blood,)  explains  himself  by  saying, 
Doth  this  offend  you  ?  What  and  if  you  shall  see  the  Son  of 
man  ascending  up  where  he  was  before?  It  is  the  Spirit  that 
quickeneth,  the  flesh  profileth  nothing.  The  words  that  I  have 
spoken  unto  you,  they  are  Spirit  and  they  are  life.  "In  this 
place,"  saith  Athanasius,  "  he  speaks  of  both  the  flesh  and 
the  Spirit,  and  carefully  distinguishes  one  from  the  other, 
in  order  that  we,  believing  not  only  in  that  which  was  ap- 
parent to  sight,  but  also  in  that  which  was  invisible,  might 
learn  that  the  things  which  he  spake  were  not  carnal  but 
spiritual.  For  how  many  men  would  his  body  have  sufficed 
for  food,  that  it  should  become  the  nourishment  of  the  whole 
world  ?  But  for  this  reason  he  made  mention  of  his  ascen- 
sion into  heaven,  that  they  might  be  drawn  away  from  this 
corporal  notion,  and  thus  understand  that  his  flesh,  about 
which  he  had  been  speaking,  was  celestial  and  spiritual 

FOOD  FROM  HEAVEN,  TO  BE  GIVEN  BY  HIMSELF.       For  thoSB 

things  which  I  have  spoken  unto  you,  saith  he,  are  Spirit  and 
life.'' 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  stands  next  in  the  order  of  our  wit- 
nesses, and  I  shall  first  quote  a  passage  from  his  comment 
on  the  Liturgy  of  his  day. 

corporis  disputans,  ac  propterea  multos  scandalizatos  conspiciens,  ita 
locutus  est :  Hoccine  vos  scandalizat  f  Quid  si  igitur  filium  hominis  spec- 
taveritis  ascendentem,  uhi  ■prius  erat  ?  Spiritus  est  qui  vivijicat,  caro  non 
prodesl  quicquam.  Verba,  qua  ego  locutus  sum  vohis,  spiritus  sunt  et  vita. 
Hie  enim  de  utroque,  came  et  spiritu  suo  locutus  est,  et  spiritum  a  carne 
discriminavit,  ut  non  solum  in  eo  quod  oculis  apparebat,  sed  naturara 
quoque  invisibilem  credentes,  disceremus  ea  qua3  loqueretur,  non  carna- 
lia  esse,  sed  spiritualia.  Quot  enim  hominibus  corpus  ejus  suffecisset 
ad  cibum,  ut  universi  mundi  alimoniafieret?  Sed  propterea  ascensionis 
BUSB  in  coelum  mentionem  fecit,  ut  eos  a  corporali  intellectu  abstraheret, 
ac  deinde  carnem  suam,  de  qua  locutus  erat,  cibum  e  supernis  coelestem 
et  spiritualem  alimoniam,  et  ab  ipso  donandum  intelligerent,  Qucb  enim 
locutus  sum  vohis,  inquit,  Spiritus  sunt  et  vita. 


61 

[1 1]  "  Holy  are  those  things,"  saith  he,  "  which  lie  upon 
the  altar,  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  being  received. 
Holy  are  ye  also,  being  endued  with  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Holy  things  therefore  are  suitable  for  holy  persons. 
— Thou  hast  heard  the  voice  of  the  chorister,  inviting  you 
as  with  a  divine  melody  to  the  communion  of  the  mysteries^ 
and  saying:  Taste  and  see  that  the  Lord  is  good.  Trust  not 
to  your  corporeal  senses  the  judgment  and  estimation  of 
this  thing;  No,  I  say,  but  to  your  faith,  without  any  doubt- 
fulness. For  those  who  taste,  are  not  commanded  to  taste 
bread  and  wine,  but  the  antitype  (or  sign  and  sacrament) 

OF  THE  BODY  AND  BLOOD  of  Christ." 

It  seems  obvious,  here,  that  Cyril  considers  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  necessary  for  the  change  by  which  the 
elements,  from  being  common  bread  and  wine,  are  now, 
after  consecration,  to  be  regarded  in  faith,  as  the  antitypes^ 
figures,  signs  and  sacraments,  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Redeemer.  For  he  represents  them  as  holy  things,  sancti- 
fied, by  the  word  of  Christ,  to  a  new  and  holy  signification, 
so  that  while  the  senses  could  behold  in  them  nothing  but 
common  bread  and  wine,  as  they  were  hei^ore,  faith  beheld 
in  them  the  solemn  memorials  of  Christ's  passion,  showing 
his  death  until  he  come.  But  it  is  equally  plain  that  Cyril 
did  not  believe  the  Roman  or  the  Tractarian  doctrine  of 
the  Real  Presence,  else  he  would  have  said  that  the  be- 
lievers tasted,  not  the  antitypes  or  figures,  but  the  actual 
body  and  blood  themselves. 

[11]  (Cyril.  Hier.  Cat.  xxiii.  Mystag,  v.  p.  331.)  Saucta  sunt,  quse  (in 
altari)  proposita  jacent,  recepto  Spiritus  sancti  superventu:  Sancti  vos 
quoque,  Spiritus  sancti  dono  dignati.  Sancta  igitur  Sanctis  conveniunt. 
— Audisti  deinde  vocera  psallentis,  divina  quadam  melodia  vos  ad  sanc- 
torum mysteriorum  communionem  invitantis,  ac  dicentis:  Gustate  et 
viDETE,  QUOD  BONUS  EST  DoMiNus.  Ne  corporeis  faucibus  liujus  rei 
judicium  £estimationemque  permittite:  non,  inqiiam,  sed  fidei  omnis 
dubitationis  experti.  Qui  enim  gustant,non  panemetvinum  degustare 
jubentur,  sed  antitypura  (seu  signum  et  sacramentum)  corporis  et  san- 
guinis Christi. 
14 


62 

This  view  of  the  doctrine  of  Cyril  will  perhaps  be  better 
understood  after  a  careful  consideration  of  the  two  following 
passages,  in  which  the  Eucharist  is  compared  with  other 
things,  about  the  meaning  of  which  there  can  be  but  one 
opinion,  [12]  "For  in  the  like  manner,"  saith  he,  "as 
the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist,  before  the  holy  invo- 
cation of  the  adorable  Trinity,  are  naked  bread  and  wine, 
but  when  that  invocation  is  completed,  the  bread  is  made 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  the  wine  the  blood  of  Christ,  even 
thus,  in  the  same  way,  those  meats  which  belong  to  the  pomp  of 
Satan,  although  by  nature,  they  are  naked  and  common,  are 
nevertheless  made,  by  the  invocation  of  demons,  contaminated 
and  profane." 

And  again,  speaking  of  the  Chrism,  used  to  this  day  in 
the  Greek  and  Roman  Churches,  (but  laid  aside  in  ours, 
because  it  had  no  Scriptural  warrant  of  the  apostles,)  Cyril 
saith,  [13]  "  Beware  that  you  do  not  regard  this  as  a  naked 
and  common  ointment.  For  as  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist, 
after  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  not  common 
bread,  but  the  body  of  Christ,  even  thus  this  holy  ointment 
is  no  longer  naked,  nor,  if  any  one  prefers  so  to  call  it, 
common  ointment  after  the  invocation,  but  the  gift  of 
Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  made  efficient  by  the  pre- 
sence of  his  divinity.     With  which  truly,  you  are  symboli- 

[12]  (S.  Cyrilli  Cat.  My  stag.  1,  p.  308.)  Quemadmodum  enim  panis 
et  vinum  Eucharistiae  ante  sanctam  adorandse  Trinitatis  invocationeni, 
nudus  panis  et  vinum  erat,  invocatione  autem  peracta,  panis  fit  corpus 
Cliristi,  et  vinum  sanguis  Christi,  ita  et  hujusmodi  esculenta  ad  pompam 
Satance  pertinentia,  quum  ex  natura  sua  nuda  et  communia  sint,  invo- 
catione doemonum  profana  et  contaminata  redduntur. 

[13]  {fb.  Cat.  Mystag.  Ill,  §  111,  p.  316.)  Cajterum  vide  ne  nudum 
et  vile  susciperis  unguentum  hoc  esse.  Nam  sicut  panis  Eucharistise, 
post  invocationem  sancti  Spiritus,  non  est  communis  panis,  sed  corpus 
Christi;  ita  et  sanctum  islud  unguentum,  non  ampHus  nudum,  neque  si 
(luis  ita  appellare  malit,  commune  unguentum  est  post  invocationem,  sed 
Christi  donarium,  et  Spiritus  sancti,  praesentia  divinitatis  ejus,  efficiens 
factum.  Quod  quidem  symbolicc  fronti,  aliisque  sensibus  tuis  illinitur. 
Ac  dum  unguento  visibili  inungitur  corpus,  sancto  et  vivifico  Spiritu 
anima  sanctificatur. 


63 

cally  anointed  on  your  forehead,  and  other  members.  And 
whilst  the  body  is  anointed  with  the  visible  ointment,  the  sold 
is  sanctified  by  the  holy  and  quickening  Spirit." 

These  comparisons  seem  clearly  to  demonstrate  the  sense 
in  which  Cyril  and  the  fathers  generally  regarded  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Real  Presence.  The  consecrated  elements 
acquired  a  new  symbolic  character  by  their  dedication  to 
a  holy  use,  just  as  the  meats  olTered  to  idols  acquired  a 
character  of  profanation  on  the  one  hand,  or  as  the  holy 
Chrism  used  in  Confirmation  acquired  an  emblematic  sig- 
nification of  spiritual  blessings  upon  the  other.  But  Cyril 
appears  to  have  held  no  more  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in 
the  consecrated  symbols  of  his  sacred  body  and  blood,  than 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  ointment,  or  of  Satan  in  the  meats 
offered  to  idols.  The  only  Real  Presence  of  Christ  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  in  the  faithful  soul,  as,  in  like  manner, 
there  might  be  a  real  presence  of  the  wicked  one,  in  the 
heart  of  the  unbeliever. 

From  Hilary,  bishop  of  Poictiers,  I  shall  next  make  a 
brief  quotation,  where  his  language  may  help  to  explain  his 
meaning  in  another  place,  which  is  much  less  clear  and 
satisfactory.  Commenting  on  a  text  of  the  apostle,  Hilary 
saith;  [14]  "We  are  all  spiritual,  if  the  Spirit  of  God  be 
in  us.  But  this  Spirit  of  God  is  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  And 
when  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  in  us,  then  his  Spirit  is  in  us 
who  raised  Christ  from  the  dead,  and  he  who  raised  Christ 
from  the  dead  will  also  quicken  our  mortal  bodies  by  the 

[14]  (S.  Hilar.  De  Trinitatc,  L.  viii.  p.  169,)  Volens  enim  naturce  uni- 
tatem  in  Patre  et  Filio  docere,ita  ait;  (Sc.  Apostolus  Paulus)  Vos  autem 
non  estis  in  came,  sed  in  Spiritu:  siquidem  Spiritus  Dei  in  vobis  est. 
Si  quis  autem  Spiritum  Christi  non  liabet,  hie  non  est  ejus,  &c. — Spiri- 
tualis  omnes  sumus,  si  in  nobis  est  Spiritus  Dei:  scd  hie  Spiritus  Dei 
Spiritus  Christi  est.  Et  cum  Christi  Spiritus  in  nobis  est,  ejus  turn 
Spiritus  in  nobis  est,  qui  Christum  suscitavit  a  mortuis,  et  qui  suscitavit 
Christum  a  mortuis,  corpora  quoque  nostra  mortalia  vivificabit  propter 
habitantem  Spiritum  ejus  in  nobis.  Vivifieamur  ergo  propter  habitantem 
in  nobis  Spiritum  Christi,  per  eum  qui  Christum  suscitavit  a  mortuis. 


64 

Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  us.  Therefore  we  are  quickened  on 
account  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  dwelling  in  us,  by  him  who 
raised  Christ  from  the  dead.''  Now  this  passage,  quoted 
from  the  very  same  treatise  cited  by  Dr.  Pusey,  may  show 
the  real  doctrine  of  this  father,  taken  as  a  whole,  to  have 
been,  that  our  resurrection  was  the  consequence,  not  of  a 
literal  incorporation  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  with 
our  bodies,  (for  this  incorporation  is  figurative  and  mystical,) 
but  of  the  indwelling  Spirit  of  Christ,  the  true  Presence 
vouchsafed  to  the  faithful  soul. 

Basil,  the  bishop  of  Cesarea,  comes  next  in  order.  From 
the  Liturgy  which  bears  his  name  I  shall  make  one  extract, 
and  from  his  epistles  another.  In  both  together,  his  doc- 
trine will  sufficiently  appear. 

Jlfter  the  consecration  of  the  elements,  and  a  collect  offered 
by  the  priest,  and  two  responses  by  the  people,  the  follow- 
ing supplication  occurs.  [15]  "We,  thy  sinful  and  un- 
worthy servants,  pray  and  beseech  thee,  0  Lover  of  man- 
kind, good  Lord,  and  we  adore  thee  with  a  grateful  sense 
of  thy  goodness,  that  thy  Holy  Spirit  may  come  upon  us  thy 
servants,  and  upon  these  thy  gifts  placed  before  thee,  and 
may  sanctify  and  make  them  the  holy  things  of  holy  persons. 
And  may  He  make  tJds  bread  to  become  the  holy  body  of  the 
Lord  God  himself  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins  and  eternal  life,  to  those  partaking  of  it." 

The  remark  which  I  would  make  upon  the  foregoing,  is 
that  the  illapse  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  prayed  for, first  on  the 
communicants  and  secondly  on  the  elements,  plainly  showing 
that  the  answer  to  the  prayer  is  expected,  not  upon  the 

[15]  (S.  BasUii  Liturgia,  0pp.  Tom.  2.  p.  678-9.)  Rogamus  et  de- 
precamur  te  amator  hominum,  bone  Domine,  nos  peccatores  et  indigni 
servi  tui,  et  adoramus  te  cum  beneplacito  bonitatis  tuEe;  ut  veniat  Spiri- 
tus  tuus  sanctus  super  nos  servos  tuos,  et  super  proposita  baecdona  tua, 
sanctificenlque  et  efficiant  ea  sancta  sanctorum. 

Et  faciat  panem  quidem  istum,  fieri  corpus  sanctum  ipsius  Domini  Dei 
et  Salvatoris  nostri  Jesu  Cbristi  in  remissionem  peccatorum,  et  vitam 
iBternam,  ex  illo  participantibus. 


65 

elements  anterior  to  their  reception,  when  lying  on  the  altar 
or  in. the  hands  of  the  priest,  but  on  the  communicants  and 
the  elements  in  the  act  of  reception.  The  more  plainly  to 
demonstrate  this,  we  find  that  this  prayer  is  offered  after 
the  consecration  is  completed,  and  that  the  elements  are  still 
called  bread;  proving  incontrovertibly,  that  no  change  is 
supposed  to  be  wrought  by  consecration  except  the  con- 
ferring upon  them  the  symbolical  or  figurative  character 
which  make  them  the  authorized  memorials  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  or,  in  other  words,  memorials  of  his  sacred  bod}^ 
broken,  and  his  precious  blood  shed,  for  our  redemption. 
In  this  feature  of  the  Basil ian  Liturgy,  we  recognize,  sub- 
stantially, the  language  of  our  own. 

I  pass  on,  however,  to  the  promised  specimen  of  this 
father^s  interpretation.  [16]  "  Whosoever  eateth  me,''  saith 
the  Saviour,  "  livelh  by  me.''  "  For  we  eat  his  flesh,"  con- 
tinues Basil, "  and  drink  his  blood,  being  made  participants, 
through  his  incarnation  and  visible  life,  of  the  Word  and 
Wisdom.  For  his  whole  mystical  life  in  the  flesh,  and  his 
constant  doctrine  in  practice,  nature,  and  theology,  are 
what  he  called  his  body  and  blood,  by  which  doctrine  the 
soul  is  nourished,"  &c.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  a  less 
literal  interpretation  than  this,  and  yet  it  is  one  which  may 
be  thoroughly  sustained,  not  only  by  the  paramount  lan- 
guage of  Scripture,  but  by  a  large  amount  of  palristical 
authority. 

From  Basil  I  pass  on  to  Gregory  Nazianzen,  who  speaks 
in  accordance  with   Cyril,  [17]  asking  how  unholy  men 

[16]  {S.  Basil.  Ep.  viii.  Turn.  Ill,  p.  84.)  Qui  manducat  me,  inqiiit, 
mvit  propter  me.  Edimus  enim  ipsius  carnem^  et  bibimus  ipsins  sanoui- 
nem,  participes  facti,  per  incarnationem  et  sensibiletn  vitam,  Verbi  et 
sapientis.  Carnem  enim  et  sanguinem,  totam  suam  mysticam  in  came 
conversationem  vocavit,  et  doctrinam  ex  practica  et  naturali  et  thcolo- 
gica  notions  constantein  declaravit:  per  quam  et  nutritur  anima,  &c. 

[17]  Greg.  JYaz.  Apohgct.  Oratio  Prima,  p.  38.  B.  Htec  igitur  cum  nossem, 
illudque  insuper,  neminem  magno,  et  Deo,et  Sacrificio,et  Pontifice,  din-- 
nura  esse,  nisi  qui  prius  seipsum  Deo  hostiam  viventem  sanctara  exlu' 

14* 


66 

could  dare  to  "offer  the  external  sacrifice,  the  figure  or  anti' 
type  of  the  great  mysteries." 

Optatus,  the  bishop  of  Milevi,  furnishes  another  inci- 
dental testimony  of  a  similar  kind,  where,  arguing  with 
the  Donatists,  he  says  [18]  that  "the  wine  which  is  trodden 
and  pressed  by  sinful  labourers,  is  nevertheless  offered  a 
sacrifice  to  God,  and  the  oil  which  is  prepared  by  evil  men 
is  also  used  in  the  holy  Chrism."  A  little  afterwards,  al- 
luding to  the  violent  proceedings  of  those  outrageous  schis- 
matics, he  asks,  "What  is  more  iniquitous  than  to  exorcize 
the  Holy  Spirit,"  (meaning  their  custom  of  re-baptizing, 
which  he  regarded  as  virtuall}'  seeking  to  drive  away  the 
Holy  Spirit  from  those  who  had  received  him)  "to  break 
altars  and  to  cast  the  Eucharist  to  dogs?"  On  the  Oxford 
theory,  these  expressions  would  have  been  quite  inadmis- 
sible. Optatus  could  not  have  written  about  offering  the 
wine  in  sacrifice  to  God,  because  he  would  regard  it  as 
being  the  sacred  blood  of  the  Redeemer.  Nor  is  it  likely 
that  he  would  have  stated  the  monstrous  sacrilege  of  cast- 
ing the  Eucharist  to  dogs,  immediately  after  the  breaking 
of  the  altars,  without  any  amplification  or  peculiar  feeling 
of  indignant  astonishment,  if  he  had  held  the  notion,  that 
in  the  consecrated  bread  there  was  actually  present,  the 
human  and  divine  Nature  of  the  glorious  Redeemer. 

But  I  pass  on  to  a  set  of  witnesses  whose  testimony  is 
more  express,  and,  from  their  eminent  reputation  in  the 

buerit,  ac  rationabile  obsequium  gratum  atque  acceptum  ostenderit, 
Deoque  sacrificium  laudis,ac  spiritum  contritum  obtulerit,  (quod  solum 
sacrificium,  is  qui  omnia  dedit,  a  nobis  exposcit)  quo  tandem  niodo  ex- 
ternum illud  sacrificium,  illud  magnorum  viysteriorum  antitypum  ipsi 
offerre  auderent,  aut  quomodo  sacerdotis  habitum  et  nomen  subire? 

[18]  S.  Oplat.  Mil.  Epis.  de  Sclusm.  Donat.  Lib.  III.  §  IV.  p.  G2.  Nam  et 
vinum  a  peccatoribus  operariis  et  calcatur  et  premitur,  et  sic  inde  Deo 
sacrificium  offertur;  oleum  quoque  a  sordidis  et  nonnullis  male  viven- 
tibus  et  immunda  loquentibus  conficitur,  et  tamen  in  sapore,  in  lumine, 
etiam  in  sancto  Chrismate  simpliciter  erogatur. 

lb.  Quid  iniquius,  qnkm  exorcizare  Spiritum  Sanctum,  altaria  fran- 
gere,Eucharistiam  animalibus  projicere? 


67 

ancient  Church,  far  more  important;  Ambrose,  Jerome, 
and  Augustin. 

Beginning  with  Ambrose,  let  us  hear  the  words  of  his 
Liturgy.  [19]  "The  priest  saith:  Make  to  us  this  oblation 
imputed,  established,  reasonable,  acceptable;  which  is  the 
FIGURE  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ/' 

"Perhaps  thou  sayest,"  [20]  continues  Ambrose,  else- 
where, "  My  bread  is  common  bread.  But  this  bread  is 
bread  before  the  sacramental  words  are  spoken,  but  when 
consecration  is  performed,  from  bread  it  becomes  the  flesh 
of  Christ.  Let  us  add  this  therefore:  How  can  that  which 
is  bread  be  the  body  of  Christ?  By  Consecration.  But 
by  what  words  and  by  whose  command  is  this  consecra- 
tion? By  those  of  the  Lord  Jesus. — Therefore  the  word  of 
Christ  makes  this  sacrament." 

[21]  "That  I  may  therefore  answer  thee,  it  was  not  the 
body  of  Christ  before  consecration,  but  after  consecration, 
I  say  to  thee  it  is  the  body  of  Christ.  He  said,  and  it  was 
done;  he  commanded,  and  it  was  created.  So  ihou  icert 
once  the  old  creature:  but  after  thou  tvert  consecrated,  thou 
didst  begin  to  he  a  new  creature.  Wouldst  thou  know  how? 
Every  man,  saith  the  apostle,  in  Christ  is  made  a  new  crea- 
ture." 

[19]  6'.  Jlmbros.  de  Sac.  Lib.  IV.  C.  V.  Tom.  2.  p.  371. 

Dicit  Sacerdos-.  Fac  nobis,  inquit,  banc  oblationem  adscriptam,  ratam, 
rationabileni,  acceptabilem:  quod  figuraest  corporis  et  sanguinis  Domini 
nostri  Jesu  Cliristi. 

[20]  S.  Jlmbros.  de  Sacramentis,  L.  IV.  C.  IV.  Tom.  2.  p.  3G8.  Tu  forte 
dicis:  Meus  panis  est  usitatus.  Sed  panis  iste  panis  est  ante  verba  Sacra- 
mentorurn:  ubi  accesserit  consecratio,  de  pane  fit  caro  Cliristi.  Hoc 
igitur  adstruamus.  Quomodo  potest  qui  panis  est,  corpus  esse  Christi? 
Consecratione.  Consecratio  autem  quibus  verbis  est,  et  cujus  sermo- 
nibus?     Domini  Jesu. — Ergo  sermo  Christi  lioc  conficit  Sacramentum. 

[21]  lb.  p.  369.  Ergo  tibi  ut  respondeam,  non  erat  corpus  Cliristi  ante 
consecrationem:  sed  post  consecrationem  dice  tibi  quia  jam  corpus  est 
Christi.  Ipse  dixit,  et  factum  est:  ipse  raandavit,  et  creatum  est.  Tu 
ipse  eras,  sed  eras  vetus  creatura:  postea  quam  consecratus  es,  nova 
creatura  esse  coepisti.  Vis  scire  quam  nova  creatura.'  Omnis,  inquit, 
in  Cltristo  nova  creatura. 


68 

[22]  "Wine  and  water  is  put  into  the  cup:  but  it  is 
made  blood  by  the  consecration  of  the  heavenly  word. — 
But  perhaps  thou  sayest,  I  do  not  see  the  appearance  of 
blood.  Nevertheless  it  has  a  simUUude;  for  as  thou  hast 
taken  the  similitude  of  death,  thus  also  thou  drinkest  the  simili- 
tude of  his  precious  blood,  that  there  might  be  no  horror  of  blood 
conceived,  and  yet  the  price  of  thy  redemption  might  operate." 

Once  more,  let  me  add  an  interesting  specimen  of  the 
figurative  style  of  our  author's  interpretations. 

[23]  "  God  loill  bruise  Satan  under  your  feet.  In  the  first 
place,  bruise  thy  heart,  in  which  was  the  character  of  the 
dragon,  that  he  may  not  find  a  place  to  dwell  in:  bruise 
the  flesh  of  the  dragon:  his  flesh  is  our  sins. — For  as  the 
saints  are  the  body  and  members  of  Christ,  so  sinners  who  do 
not  abandon  sin  but  adhere  to  it,  are  the  body  and  members  of 
the  dragon.  Therefore  we  feast  upon  the  BOor  op 
Christ;  but  they  feast  upon  the  body  of  the  dragon; 
we  who  contend  that  we  may  adhere  to  Christ,  feast  upon 
the  daily  pardon  and  remission  of  sins,  but  they  who  daily 
add  sin  to  s'm,  feast  upon  the  continuance  of  their  crimes  and 
wickedness.'^ 

Now  in  all  this,  it  is  easy  to  see  the  sense  in  which  the 
consecrated  elements  were  regarded  by  the  Church,  in  the 
age  of  Ambrose,  as  the  body  and  blood.     In  the  Liturgy, 

[22]  lb.  p.  370.  Vinum  et  aqua  in  calicem  mittitur:  sed  fit  sanguis 
consecralione  verbi  coelestis.  §  20.  Sed  forte  dicis;  Specieni  sanguinis 
non  video.  Sed  babet  similitudinem:  sicut  enim  mortis  similitudinem 
sumpsisti,  ita  etiam  similitudinem  preciosi  sanguinis  bibis,  ut  nullus 
horror  cruoris  sit,  et  pretium  tamen  operetur  redemptionis. 

[23]  S.  Amhros.  inPs.  xxxvi.  Enar.  §  9.  Tom- 1.  p.  819.  c<c.  Conleral, 
inquit,  Deus  Satamtm  suh  pedihus  vestris.  Contere  primo  cor  tuum,  in 
quo  erat  draconis  cubile,  ut  non  inveniat  ubi  possit  habitare:  contere  dra- 
conis  carnes;  carnes  ejus  peccata  nostra  sunt.  Sicut  enim  sancti,  corpus 
et  membra  sunt  Christi;  ita  peccatores  qui  peccatum  non  deserunt,  sed 
peccato  iniicerent,  corpus  draconis  et  membra  sunt.  Ideo  nos  Christi 
corpus  epulamur;  illi  autem  corpus  epulantur  draconis:  nos  epulamur 
qui  Christo  adhaerere  contendimus,  remissionem  quotidianam  et  veniam 
peccatorum;  illi  autem  qui  peccatis  quotidie  peccata  connectunt,  conti- 
nuationem  flagitiorum  epulantur  et  criminum. 


69 

for  instance,  the  very  prayer  supplicates  tiiat  they  may  be 
made,  not  the  reality,  but  tlie  figure:  corresponding  with 
the  antitype  of  Cyril,  the  symbolicnl  and  typical  body  of 
Origen,  and  the  same  word  figure  of  Tertullian.  Next  we 
see  him  stating;  that  the  elements  become  the  flesh  of  Christ, 
not  by  his  real  presence  in  them,  nor  by  any  infusion  of  our 
Lord's  spiritual  and  divine  nature  into  them,  but  by  con- 
secration, performed  by  the  word  of  Christ,  namely,  his 
command  or  express  authority.  Thirdly,  we  see  the  change 
in  the  elements  by  this  consecration,  compared  to  the 
change  in  the  Christian  when  he  is  consecrated  to  the  ser- 
vice of  God.  P'ourthly,  Ambrose,  in  answer  to  the  diffi- 
culty that  the  communicant  does  not  see  the  appearance  of 
blood,  replies,  that  granting  this,  there  is,  nevertheless,  (not 
the  reality,  but)  a  similitude,  compares  it  to  the  similitude 
of  the  Christian  being  buried  by  baptism  into  Christ's  death, 
which  is  confessedly  mystical  and  symbolical,  and  then 
states  a  reason  why  it  should  not  be  really  the  blood  of 
Christ,  that  there  should  be  no  horror  of  blood,  but  that  it 
should  operate  to  give  us  the  benefits  of  the  Saviour's  death 
and  passion.  And  lastly,  we  see  him  using  the  very  same 
language  in  reference  to  our  feeding,  by  our  sins,  upon  the 
body  of  Satan,  which  he  uses  concerning  our  feeding,  by 
holiness,  upon  the  body  of  Christ,  than  which  I  can  conceive 
of  no  proof  more  conclusive  to  show,  that  this  language 
concerning  the  consecrated  elements  of  the  Eucharistical 
feast,  was  well  understood  as  symbolical  and  figurative 
throughout,  designed  to  represent,  in  the  liveliest  form,  the 
spiritual  effects  assured  to  the  faithful  partaker. 

But  I  proceed  to  the  next  witness  on  our  list,  the  learned 
Jerome,  who  will  fully  sustain,  if  I  am  not  much  mistaken, 
the  same  doctrine. 

In  one  place,  for  example,  he  states  that  our  Lord  [24] 

"offered  not  water,  but  wine,  as  a  type  of  his  blood." 

[24]  Hieron.  Lib.  See.  adv.  Jovinianum,  Opp.  Tom.  2.  p.  52.  C,  lo 
TYPO  SANGUINIS  sui  non  obtulit  aquam,  sed  vinum. 


7^ 

Again,  in  his  commentary  on  the  institution  of  the  Eu- 
charist in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  Jerome  salth,  [25]  that 
"after  the  t3^plcal  Passover  had  been  fulfilled,  and  He  had 
eaten  the  flesh  of  the  Lamb  with  his  apostles,  He  took  bread, 
which  comforts  the  heart  of  man,  and  proceeded  to  the  true 
Sacrament  of  the  Passover,  that  in  like  manner  as  Melchi- 
sedec,  the  priest  of  the  most  High  God,  in  prefiguration  of 
him,  had  done,  offering  bread  and  wine.  He  also  might 
REPRESENT  the  truth  of  his  body  and  blood." 

In  the  same  fatlier's  commentary  upon  the  institution, 
as  narrated  by  St.  Mark,  we  read  as  follows:  [26]  "Jesus 
took  bread,  and  blessed  and  brake  it,  transfiguring  his  body 
in  bread,  which  (body)  is  the  present  Church,  accepted 
in  faith,  blessed  in  number,  broken  in  sufierings,  given  in 
examples,  received  in  doctrines,"  &c. 

Again,  in  his  commentary  on  the  same  transaction  in 
St.  Paul's  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  Jerome  saith, 
that  our  Lord,  [27]  "  being  about  to  suffer,  left  to  us  this 

LAST  COMMEMORATION,  OR  MEMORIAL." 

And  again,  on  the  text  which  declares  that  the  unworthy 
communicant  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord,  Jerome  makes  this  comment,  [28]  "Because  he  de- 
spised, as  a  common  thing,  the  sacrament  (or  sign)  of 
such  a  mysterj^." 

Now  in  all  of  these  passages  we  have  distinctly  set  forth 

[25]  Hieron.  Com.  in  Mat.  Lib.  IV.  Cap.  XXVI.  Tom.  9.  p.  64.  B. 
Ccenantibus  autem  eis,  accepit  Jesus  panem,  &c,]  Postquam  typicum 
Pascha  fuerat  impletum,  et  agni  carnes  cum  Apostolis  comederat,  assu- 
mit  panem,  qui  confortat  cor  hominis,  et  ad  verum  Paschee  transgreditur 
Sacramentum,  ut  quomodo  in  prsefiguratione  ejus  Melchisedec  Summi 
Dei  sacerdos,  panem  et  vinum  offerens  fecerat,  ipse  quoque  veritatem 
sui  corporis  et  sanguinis  REPRa:sENTARET. 

[26]  lb.  Com.  in  Marc.  Cap.  XIV.  Tom.  9.  p.  87.  Accepit  Jesus  panem 
et  benedicens  fregitj  transfigurans  corpus  suum  in  panem  quod  est  Ec- 
CLEsiA  PRyESENS,  qu£B  accipitur  in  fide,  bcnedicitur  in  numero,  frangitur 
in  passionibus,  datur  in  exemplis,  sumitur  in  ductrinis,  &c. 

[27]  Hieron.  Com.  in  priorem  ad  Corinth,  cap.  xi.  9,  p.  255:  accipit 
•panem,  et  gralias  agens,  &c.  Hoc  est,  benedicens  etiam  passurus,  ulti- 
mam  nobis  commemorationem  sive  memoriam  dereliquit. 


n 

the  same  idea,  viz.  that  the  consecrated  elements  are  the 
body  of  Christ,  in  a  figurative  or  symbolical  sense,  and 
nothing  more.  In  one  place  he  calls  them  expressly  a  type, 
in  another,  a  representation,  in  a  (bird,  an  emblem  of  the 
Church,  in  a  fourth,  a  commemoration  or  memorial  of  Christ's 
sufferings,  in  a  fifth,  a  sacrament  (or  sign)  of  the  great 
mystery.  It  is  obvious  that  such  language  accords  pre- 
cisely with  the  doctrine  of  tiie  Eucharist  as  declared  by  the 
Church  of  England  and  explained  by  the  Reformers,  but 
can  hardly  be  pressed,  by  any  fair  management,  into  the 
service  of  our  Tractarian  brethren. 

The  last  of  the  fathers  which  I  propose  to  cite,  is  the 
highly-gifted  Augustin,  from  whom  my  extracts  will  be 
more  copious,  as  they  will  be,  I  trust,  perfectly  conclusive 
on  the  point  before  us. 

Illustrating  the  fundamental  maxim  of  figurative  language 
by  the  ordinary  practice  of  the  Church,  this  eminent  teacher 
saith  as  follows.     [29]  "  We  often  express  ourselves  in  this 

[28]  (Reus  erit  corporis  et  sanguinis  Domini.)  Quia  tanti  mysterii 
Sacramentum  pro  vili  despexerit. 

[29]  S.  Augustin.  ad  Bonifac.  Ep.  98.  0pp.  Tom.  11,  p.  202,  §  9. 
Nempe  ssepe  ita  loquimur,  ut  Pascha  propinquante  dicamus,  crastinam 
vel  perendinam  Domini  passionem,  cum  ilia  ante  tarn  multos  annos  pas- 
sus  sit,  nee  omnino  nisi  semel  ilia  passio  facta  sit.  Nempe  ipso  die  do- 
minico  dicimus,  Hodle  Dominus  resurrexit,  cum  ex  quo  resurrexil  tot 
anni  transierint.  Cur  nemo  tarn  ineptus  est,  ut  nos  ita  loquentes  arguat 
esse  mentitos,  nisi  quia  istos  dies  secundum  illorum,  quibus  hcBC  gesta 
sunt,  similitudinem  nuncupamus,  ut  dicatur  ipse  dies  qui  non  est  ipse, 
sed  revolutione  temporis  similis  ejus:  et  dicatur  illo  die  fieri,  propter 
sacramenti  celebrationem,  quod  non  illo  die,  sed  jam  olim  factum  est? 
Nonne  semel  immoiatus  est  Christus  in  seipso,  et  tamen  in  Sacramento 
non  solum  per  omnes  Paschae  solemnitates,  sed  omni  die  populis  immo- 
latur,  nee  utique  mentitur  qui  interrogatus  eum  responderit  immolari? 
Si  enim  sacramenta  quamdam  similitudinem  earum  rerum,  quarum  sa- 
cramenla  sunt,  non  haberent,  omnino  sacramenta  non  assent.  Ex  hac 
autem  similitudine  plerumque  etiam  ipsarum  rerum  nomina  accipiunt. 
Sicut  ergo  secundum  quemdam  modum  sacramentum  corporis  Cbristi 
corpus  Christ!  est,  sacramentum  sanguinis  Ciiristi  sanguis  Christi  est, 
ita  sacramentum  fidei  fides  est. — Sicut  de  ipso  baptismo  Apostolus,  Con- 
sepulll,  inquit,  sumus  Christo  per  laptismum  in  mortem,    Non  ait  sepultu- 


manner,  as  when  Easter  is  approaching  we  say,  To-morrow 
or  the  next  day  will  be  the  Passion  of  our  Lord,  although 
so  many  years  have  passed  away  since  he  suffered,  nor  did 
he  suffer  more  than  once.  In  like  manner  we  say  on  the 
Lord's  day,  To-day  the  Lord  arose,  although  the  real  day 
of  his  resurrection  was  so  many  years  ago.  Why  is  no 
one  so  foolish  as  to  accuse  us  of  lying  when  we  talk  thus, 
unless  it  be  because  we  express  a  similitude  to  those  days 
on  which  the  events  actually  occurred?  so  that  it  may  be 
called  the  same  day,  which  is  not  in  reality  the  same,  but 
in  the  revolution  of  time,  is  its  likeness,  just  as  by  reason 
of  the  celebration  of  the  Sacrament,  that  may  be  called 
done  on  that  day,  which  was  truly  done,  not  on  that  day 
but  long  before  it.  Was  not  Christ  once  really  immolated, 
and  yet  in  the  Sacrament,  not  only  through  all  the  solem- 
nities of  Easter,  but  every  day,  he  is  immolated  for  the 
people;  nor  does  he  speak  falsely,  who,  being  interrogated, 
should  reply,  that  Christ  was  immolated.  For  if  the  Sa- 
craments had  not  a  certain  similitude  of  those  things,  of 
which  they  are  Sacraments,  they  would  not  be  Sacraments 
at  all.  But  from  this  similitude,  they  receive,  for  the  most 
part,  the  names  of  the  things  themselves.  As  therefore  the 
Sacrament  of  the  body  of  Christ,  after  a  certain  mode,  is 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  the  Sacrament  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  is  the  blood  of  Christ,  even  so  the  Sacrament  of  faith 
is  faith.  Even  as  the  Apostle  saith  of  baptism  itself,  We 
are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism  into  death.  He  does  not 
say.  We  have  exhibited  the  sign  of  burial,  but  he  saith  di- 
rectly, We  are  buried.  Hence  he  describes  the  Sacrament 
(the  sign  or  figure)  of  such  a  thing,  no  otherwise  than  by 
the  name  of  the  thing  itself." 

Again,  our  author,  speaking  of  the  schismatic  Donatists, 
saith,  [30]  "  They  are  not  to  be  despaired  of,  for  they  are 

ram  significavimus:  sed  prorsus  ait:    cnnscpultl  sumus.     Sacramentum 
ergo  tantae  rei  non  nisi  ejusdem  rei  vocabulo  nuncupavit. 

[30]  S.  Auguslin.  de  cor.  Donal.  Lib.  ad  Bonifacium,  §  50.   Tom,  2.  p. 


73 

yet  in  the  body:  but  they  may  not  seek  the  Holy  Spirit 
unless  in  the  body  of  Christ,  of  which  they  have  indeed 
the  Sacrament  outwardly,  but  they  do  not  hold  inwardly 
the  thing  itself  of  ivhich  it  is  the  Sacrament,  and  therefore 
they  eat  and  drink  judgment  to  themselves." 

[31]  Elsewhere,  Augustin  lays  down  a  rule  of  figurative 
language  in  Scripture,  which  he  applies  in  a  ver}'  interesting 
manner  to  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist.  "  If  a  text  con- 
taining a  precept,"  saith  he,  "either  forbids  any  baseness 
or  villany,  or  enjoins  utility  or  beneficence,  it  is  not  figu- 
rative. But  if  it  seems  to  command  what  is  criminal  or 
dishonourable,  or  to  forbid  what  is  useful  or  beneficent, 
it  is  figurative.  Thus  our  Lord  saith:  Unless  ye  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life 
in  you.  He  seems  to  command  a  wicked  and  immoral  ac- 
tion: therefore  it  is  a  figure,  directing  a  participation  in 
our  Lord's  Passion,  and  that  we  shall  sweetly  and  usefully 
lay  it  up  in  our  memory,  that  for  us  his  flesh  was  crucified 
and  wounded." 

Commenting  on  the  Book  of  Genesis,  where  Joseph,  in- 
terpreting the  baker's  dream,  saith,  The  three  baskets  (or 
dishes,)  are  three  days,  Augustin  observes:  [32]  "He  does 

504.  Non  sunt  desperandi :  adhuc  enim  sunt  in  corpore  :  sed  non  qute- 
rant  Spiritum  Sanctum,  nisi  in  Christi  corpore,  cujus  habent  foris  sacra- 
mentum,  sed  rem  ipsam  non  tenent  intus  cujus  est  illud  sacramentum 
et  adeo  sibi  judicium  manducant  et  bibunt. 

[31]  lb.  de  Doctrina  Christiana,  L.  iii.  §  24.  Tom.  3,  p.  40.  Si  praeceptiva 
locutioest  autflagitiumautfacinusvetans,aututilitatem  autbeneficentiam 
jubens,non  est  figurata.  Si  autem  flagitium  aut  facinus  videtur  jubere, 
aut  utilitatem  aut  beneficentiam  vetare,  figurata  est.  JYisl  manducaveritis, 
inquit,  carnem  filii  hominis,  et  sanguinem  biberitis,  non  liabebitis  vitavi  in 
vobis.  Facinus.vel  flagitium  videtur  jubere  :  figura  est  ergo,  proecipiens 
passioni  Dominicee  communicandum,  et  suaviter  atque  utiliter  recon- 
dendum  in  memoria,  quod  pro  nobis  caro  ejus  crucifixa  et  vulnerata  sit. 

[32]  lb.  p.  250.  Ties  fundi,  tres  dies  sunt.  (Gen.  xl.  12.)  JNon  dixit, 
tres  dies  significant.  Et  multum  hsec  locutio  notanda  est,  ubi  aliqua  sig- 
nificantia,  earum  rerum  quas  significant,  nomine  appellantur:  inde  est 
quod  ait  Apostolus,  Petra  autem  erat  Christus,  non  ait,  Petrasignificabat 
Christus. 

15 


not  say,  They  signify  three  days.  And  this  mode  of  ex- 
pression is  greatly  to  be  noted,  where  the  signs  are  called 
by  the  name  of  the  things  which  they  signify:  hence  the 
apostle  salth:  And  the  rock  was  Christ,  he  does  not  say, 
The  rock  signified  Christ."" 

Again  saith  Augustin,  very  expressly,  [33]  "  Our  Lord 
did  not  hesitate  to  say:   This  is  my  body,  when  he  gave 

them  THE  SIGN  OF  HIS  BODY." 

And  again,  speaking  of  the  very  word,  [34]  "  Sacraments, 
that  is,"  saith  Augustin,  "sacred  signs." — "Even  as  we," 
continues  he,  "with  faithful  heart  and  mouth,  acknowledge 
the  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus, 
giving  to  us  his  flesh  to  eat,  and  his  blood  to  drink;  al- 
though it  may  seem  more  horrible  to  eat  human  flesh,  and 
drink  human  blood,  than  to  perish;  and  so  throughout  all 
the  holy  Scriptures,  whatever  is  expounded  concerning 
figurative  speech  or  action,  should  be  according  to  the  rule 
of  a  sound  faith." 

Fi'om  these  extracts  out  of  the  fathers,  I  think  it  abun- 
dantly plain,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  Church  was 
fully  understood  and  fairly  professed  by  our  great  Re- 
formers; that  the  early  Christians  did  not  hold  the  conse- 
crated elements  to  be  more  than  a  figure  or  symbol  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ;  that  the  very  term  sacrament  in 
the  primitive  ages,  (and  indeed  until  the  times  of  the  school- 
men) signified,  as  saith  Augustin,  a  sacred  sign;  the  same 
meaning  still  retained  by  us  in  the  Articles:  and  therefore 

[33]  Tb.  contra  Jldhnantum,  Tom.  viii.;;.  90,  §  3.  Non  enim  Doininus  dubi- 
tavit  dicere,  Hoc  est  corpus  mcum:  cum  signum  claret  corporis  suL 

[34]  lb.  contra  Jldversarium  Legis  et  Proph.Lib.  ii.  p.  425.  Sacramenta,  id 
est,  sacra  signa.  Sicut  mediatorem  Dei  et  hominum,  hominem  Christum 
Jesum,  carnem  suam  nobis  manducandam  bibendumque  sanguinera  dan- 
tem,fideli  corde  atque  ore  suscipimus;  quamvis  horribilius  videatur  hu- 
manam  carnem  manducare  quam  perimere,  et  humanum  sanguinem 
potare  qukm  fundere:  atque  in  omnibus  Sanctis  Scripturis,  secundum 
sanae  fidei  regulam  figurate  dictum  vel  factum  si  quid  exponitur,  de  qui- 
buslibet  rebus  et  verbis  qua  sacris  paginis  continentur,  expositio  ilia 
ducatur,  &.c. 


75 

that  heretics,  schismatics,  and  wicked  men,  might  receive 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  sacramenlally,  that  is,  they 
might  receive  the  outward  signs  or  consecrated  elements 
which  were  the  appointed  emblems  of  Christ's  passion,  as 
well  as  the  righteous.  But  the  Real  Presence,  the  spiritual 
benefit,  could  only  be  received  by  the  faithful  and  sincere 
heart,  and  from  Him  alone  who  is  the  Searcher  of  the 
heart.  Hence  the  manifest  error  of  placing  the  inward 
grace  in  the  outward  element,  of  committing  to  the  hand  of 
the  minister  that  spiritual  presence  which  comes  from  the 
direct  agency  of  God,  and  thus  raising  the  external  sign,  and 
the  human  instrument,  to  a  dignity  and  importance  which 
our  Lord  reserved  for  his  own  heavenly  power,  his  own 
divine  agency.  The  probable,  not  to  say  certain,  conse- 
quences of  such  an  error,  are  sufficiently  intimated  by  the 
words  of  Christ  himself;  "  In  vain  do  ye  worship  me,  teaching 
for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men,''  with  which  we  may 
well  connect  the  language  of  the  Almighty  by  the  prophet, 
"/  will  not  give  my  glory  to  another.'' 

Under  this  aspect  of  the  question,  my  respected  and  be- 
loved brethren,  I  must  confess  myself  altogether  opposed 
to  the  discourse  of  Rev,  Dr.  Pusey.  For  its  language  is 
borrowed  from  the  highest  figures  of  the  fathers,  quoted 
without  the  slightest  qualification,  and  applied  in  the  most 
literal  sense;  nay,  hardly  admitting  of  a  construction  short 
of  Transubstantiation  itself;  as,  for  instance,  the  words  taken 
from  Chrysostom,  "  That  which  is  in  the  cup  is  that  which 
flowed  from  his  side,"  to  which  the  preacher  adds  this  com- 
ment, "  Touching  with  our  very  lips  that  cleansing  blood,  how 
shall  we  not,  with  the  Ancient  Church,  confess,  Lo,  this 
hath  touched  my  lips,  and  shall  take  away  my  iniquities,  and 
cleanse  my  sins." 

I  am  perfectly  aware,  indeed,  that  this  distinguished  di- 
vine has  frequently  declared,  in  general  terms,  his  adherence 
to  the  Articles,  and  therefore  it  has  been  supposed  by  some, 
that  the  language  of  his  sermon  cannot  be  fairly  interpreted 


76 

except  in  accordance  with  the  Church's  doctrine.  But  I 
would  beseech  himself  and  his  friends  to  ask  their  own 
good  sense  and  Christian  feelings  whether  such  an  apology 
can  be  admitted  in  justification  of  this  particular  discourse? 
Manifestly  not,  in  my  humble  judgment,  and  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons: 

First,  because  the  very  object  of  preaching  is  to  deliver 
the  truth  of  God  to  the  people  who  are  assembled  to  hear. 
If  that  truth  is  kept  back,  if  an  exaggerated  and  dispropor- 
tioned  representation  of  one  side  of  a  great  doctrine  is  put 
forth  as  the  whole,  if  false  views  are  advanced  by  the  sup- 
pression of  essential  explanations,  if  an  apparent  agreement 
with  the  superstitious  and  perilous  tenets  of  Rome  be  in- 
culcated, without  the  slightest  attempt  on  the  part  of  the 
preacher  to  guard  his  hearers  from  misapprehension — it  is 
no  excuse  to  say  that  the  congregation  can  correct  the  er- 
ror of  the  sermon  for  themselves,  by  recurring  to  what  the 
preacher  has  either  said  or  written  on  some  other  occasion. 
I  deny  that  any  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  has  a  right  to  lay 
stumbling  blocks  in  the  way  of  his  brethren,  by  preaching 
on  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  so  as  to  require  such 
explanation.  It  is  his  duty  to  establish,  not  to  unsettle; 
to  clear  away  the  mists  of  error,  not  to  cloud  the  minds  of 
his  hearers  with  the  fogs  of  Roman  superstition;  to  ground 
them  thoroughly  in  the  faith  as  the  Church  has  set  it  forth, 
not  to  throw  them  into  a  state  of  doubtfulness  as  to  her 
real  orthodoxy.  And  he  is  bound  to  remember  that  each 
sermon  must  be  viewed  as  a  whole  in  itself,  with  respect  to 
his  congregation,  because  he  cannot  expect  that  the  people 
either  will  or  can  rectify  its  apparent  errors  from  any  other 
source.  Some  of  them  may  never  visit  the  Church  again. 
The  preacher  may  not  live  to  correct  his  own  mistakes:  the 
same  identical  assembly  may  never  meet  together  to  give 
him  the  opportunity.  And  therefore  it  is  obvious,  that  the 
sermon  cannot  be  defended  by  appealing  to  other  statements  of 
its  author,  extraneous  to  itself.     The  very  admission  that  it 


77 

needs  such  a  defence,  amounts  to  a  virtual   condemna- 
tion. 

But  secondly,  the  apology  is  utterly  unsatisfactory  when 
it  is  recollected,  that  our  Tractarian  friends  had  long  pro- 
claimed themselves  to  be  in  a  transition  state.  The  British 
Critic  had  published  the  avowal,  that  they  could  not  stay 
where  they  where,  that  they  must  "go  back  or  go  forward, 
and  that  it  would  surely  be  the  latter.''  The  famous  Tract 
No.  90  had  demonstrated  the  surprising  fact,  that  the  Ar- 
ticles of  the  Church  of  England  might  be  so  interpreted  as 
to  satisfy  the  consciences  of  men  who  were  then  professedly 
within  her  pale,  but  who  were  seriously  contemplating  the 
abandonment  of  her  communion  for  that  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  The  new  system  of  Tractarian  theology  was  con- 
fessedly in  a  growing  condition,  and  every  month  was  ex- 
pected to  produce  ^ome  fresh  development.  At  such  a 
time  and  under  such  circumstances,  it  seems  perfectly  pre- 
posterous to  my  mind,  that  the  hearers  of  Dr.  Pusey  should 
be  asked  to  receive  his  sermon  in  that  sense  only,  which 
he  and  his  friends  were  universally  believed  to  have  repu- 
diated. He  could  not  have  so  mistaken  his  position  as  to 
believe,  that  his  words  would  be  transmuted  into  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Reformation.  On  the  contrary,  he  must  have 
been  perfectly  aware,  that  whatever  construction  they  re- 
quired on  the  part  of  his  congregation,  must  needs  be  sup- 
plied from  precisely  the  opposite  quarter;  that  if  he  spake 
in  language  that  sounded  like  Romanism,  the  fears  and  the 
expectations  of  those  who  listened  to  him  must  make  them 
doubly  susceptible  of  a  false  impression.  And  therefore 
all  the  peculiarities  of  his  situation, — peculiarities  which  had 
been  increasing  in  weight  and  importance  for  ten  successive 
years — precluded  the  correction  of  error  by  any  ordinary 
process  of  implicit  faith  in  the  intentions  of  the  preacher; 
and  invested  his  whole  discourse  with  the  most  decided 
character  of  deliberate  and  conscious  responsibility, 

15*  :.j 


78 

Thirdly,  however,  the  excuse  attempted  goes  no  farther 
than  to  assert,  that  Dr.  Pusey  does  not  maintain  the  Roman 
tenet  of  Transubstantialion.  I  have  already  shown,  at  large, 
the  exceeding  skill  with  which  this  obnoxious  term  is  ex- 
plained by  our  Tractarian  friends,  so  as  to  leave  them  at  li- 
berty to  state  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in  such  language  as 
the  Romanists  themselves  approve.  And  therefore,  for  my 
part,  I  am  disposed  to  do  full  justice  to  Dr.  Pusey's  candour, 
since  I  am  persuaded  that  he  holds  ex  animo  exactly  what 
his  sermon  expresses;  namely,  that  by  virtue  of  the  act  of 
consecration,  the  human  and  divine  natures  of  our  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ  become  united  to  the  sacramental  elements,  on  the 
altar  and  in  the  hands  of  the  officiating  priest:  a  doctrine 
which  I  believe  to  be  thoroughly  inconsistent  with  Scrip- 
ture, with  the  Reformers,  with  the  fathers,  and  with  the 
standards  of  our  Church — which  is,  in  my  opinion,  liable 
to  all  the  objections  of  Transubstantiation,  and  in  no  re- 
spect to  be  distinguished  from  it,  except  by  one  of  those 
refined  subtleties  in  theology  which  make  a  distinction 
without  a  difference.  And  thus  persuaded,  I  am  compelled 
to  say,  that  I  cannot  join  with  those  of  my  respected  bre- 
thren who  have  protested  against  the  sentence  of  the  Vice- 
Chancellor  in  suspending  him.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe, 
that  if  the  censures  of  the  Church  of  England  had  been 
formally  passed  upon  all  the  doctrinal  innovations  of  that 
school,  on  the  publication  of  Tract  No.  90,  neither  the  in- 
terests of  Christian  truth  nor  the  law  of  ecclesiastical  jus- 
tice would  have  had  any  reason  to  complain. 

I  make  this  statement  without  having  seen  any  of  the 
publications  which  this  extraordinary  act  of  University 
discipline  has  called  forth,  on  the  side  of  the  high  func- 
tionary concerned.  But  1  have  seen  the  elaborate  attack 
upon  him  and  the  six  doctors  of  divinity,  in  defence  of  Dr. 
Pusey,  which  occupies  so  large  a  portion  of  the  late  British 
Critic,  and  in  which  there  is,  undoubtedly,  a  most  brilliant 
display  of  argument  and  eloquence;  of  authority,  popular 


79 

sense  of  right,  the  sanctity  of  law,  the  majesty  of  justice, 
satire,  wit,  ridicule,  and  every  element  of  forensic  and  rhe- 
torical ability,  all  mingled  together,  with  a  profusion,  a 
keenness,  a  splendour,  and  a  scorching  power,  quite  above 
the  meed  of  my  humble  admiration.  It  is  no  part  of  my 
province  to  obtrude  an  opinion  as  to  the  strict,  technical 
accuracy,  with  which  the  statutes  of  the  University  were 
enforced  on  this  occasion.  I  prefer  the  safer  course  of 
leaving  the  mode  of  such  peculiar  proceedings  to  the  judg- 
ment of  those,  who  have  the  best  opportunity  to  know 
whether  their  course  is  according  to  precedent;  and  who 
have  every  possible  motive,  whether  of  duty  to  the  Church, 
duty  to  the  University,  duty  to  the  public,  or  duty  to 
themselves,  to  prevent  their  hazarding  the  obvious  conse- 
quences of  any  act,  which  could  deserve  the  charge  of  offi- 
cial oppression.  But  I  do  consider  myself  bound,  in  all 
Christian  honesty,  to  say,  that  I  cannot  see  any  just  ground 
of  complaint,  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Pusey,  so  far  as  his  sermon 
is  concerned.  It  appears  by  the  statement  of  the  British 
Critic,  that  the  legal  tribunal,  appointed  by  the  statutes  of 
the  University,  examined  it  to  their  own  satisfaction;  that 
they  sent  Dr.  Jelf  to  confer  with  the  Author  about  the  pas- 
sages which  were  found  objectionable,  in  order  to  ascer- 
tain whether  he  would  consent  to  recant,  or  to  modify  his 
doctrine;  that  he  utterly  refused  to  do  either  the  one  or  the 
other,  and  that  after  allowing  him  sufficient  time  to  change 
his  determination,  the  Vice  Chancellor  suspended  him  for 
two  years.  These  are  the  main  facts,  as  1  have  gathered 
them  from  Dr.  Pusey 's  most  accomplished  advocate;  and 
he  pours  the  most  unsparing  rebuke  upon  the  whole  tran- 
saction, first  because  there  was  no  public  trial,  next,  because 
Dr.  Pusey  was  not  called  upon  to  make  his  public  defence; 
and  lastly,  because  the  examination  of  the  sermon  was  held 
in  a  private  room,  over  a  tea-table. 

In  the  first  of  these  objections,  there  is,  without  doubt, 
great  plausibility.     We  are  all  accustomed  to  the  idea,  that 


80 

no  man  can  be  condemned  without  a  public  trial;  and  this 
axiomatic  principle  of  justice  is  naturally  supposed  to  have 
a  full  and  fair  application  to  the  case  in  question.  In  truth, 
however,  I  have  not  been  able  to  discover  that  it  has  the 
slightest  connexion  with  the  examination  of  published  icritings 
by  a  Court  of  heresy.  I  seriously  question  whether  any 
Theological  Faculty  in  Europe,  of  any  kind  or  under  any 
circumstances,  ever  yet  held  a  public  court,  for  the  purpose  of 
investigating  the  soundness  or  orthodoxy  of  a  book  or  a 
sermon.  If  the  highly  gifted  Reviewer  in  the  British  Cri- 
tic can  find  a  single  instance  in  the  history  of  the  Universal 
Church,  where  such  an  examination  was  ever  conducted  in 
any  other  than  a  private  manner,  he  will  deserve  thanks 
for  the  discovery.  To  my  humble  judgment  it  would  ap- 
pear, that  the  deliberate  weighing  of  written  theological 
statements,  and  comparing  them  with  the  standards  of  re- 
ligious truth,  is  a  process  generically  different  from  the 
hearing  of  living  witnesses  and  the  ordinary  administration 
of  earthly  law.  Still  more  peculiar  is  the  guardianship, 
wisely  established,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  over  the  pulpits 
of  bodies  like  the  English  Universities.  The  irrelevancy, 
therefore,  of  this  first  objection,  seems  sufficiently  plain. 

The  second  is  equally  plausible,  and,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
equally  nugatory.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Pusey  had  publicly  pro- 
claimed what  the  theological  Faculty  adjudged  to  be  erro- 
neous and  dangerous  opinions,  concerning  one  of  the  cardi- 
nal points  in  controversy  between  the  Churches  of  England 
and  Rome.  His  right  of  defence  could  only  embrace  two 
questions:  first.  Whether  his  doctrine  was  unsound,  and 
secondly,  Whether  he  was  the  person  who  delivered  it. 
The  latter  point,  however,  was  not  disputed.  No  one  af- 
fected to  doubt  that  the  discourse  was  his  discourse,  and 
that  he  was  the  writer  and  the  preacher.  And  as  to  its 
orthodoxy,  there  was  the  written  document  of  Dr.  Pusey 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  Standards  of  the  Church  upon  (he 
other,  while  it  was  the  business  of  the  theological  Faculty 


81 

to  compare  them,  and  judge  how  far  they  disagreed,  1 
cannot,  therefore,  understand  what  the  Reviewer  intends, 
by  this  right  of  defending  the  doctrine,  unless  he  means 
that  Dr.  Pusey  should  have  been  invited,  in  the  very  pre- 
sence of  the  Faculty,  publicly  to  oppose  the  judgment  to 
which  they  had  already  arrived,  in  their  official  examination 
of  the  sermon.  But  this  would  have  involved  an  open 
contempt  of  their  authority.  And  the  legal  absurdity 
would  be  the  same,  as  if  a  temporal  Court,  after  sentence 
was  pronounced,  should  call  upon  the  party  condemned  to 
make  a  public  argument,  in  order  to  prove  that  he  was  in 
the  right,  and  that  his  judges  were  mistaken! 

In  the  case  under  consideration,  however,  the  objection 
seems  particularly  unreasonable,  when  it  is  remembered, 
that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Pusey  had  been  publicly  defending  his 
doctrines,  by  himself  and  his  colleagues,  for  years  together, 
against  all  opposition;  in  total  disregard  of  the  various  cen- 
sures passed  upon  his  opinions  by  a  large  proportion  of  the 
English  bishops,  and  in  the  full  view  of  a  most  extensive 
and  mischievous  agitation,  not  only  within  the  precincts  of 
the  University,  but  throughout  the  whole  land,  which  had 
long  been  regarded,  by  thousands  of  good  men,  with  pain- 
ful apprehension.  The  sermon  in  question,  therefore,  was 
not  so  much  a  single  act,  as  the  last  of  a  series  of  acts, 
which  had  been  most  pertinaciously  and  publicly  defended 
already,  and  about  the  character  and  bearing  of  which, 
neither  Dr.  Pusey  nor  his  friends  could  possibly  give  the 
Vice  Chancellor  and  his  colleagues,  any  new  light  or  infor- 
mation. Consequently  there  was  but  one  call,  which  could, 
consistently,  be  addressed  to  him,  before  the  final  sentence 
was  pronounced;  and  that  was  the  formal  call,  to  recant  or 
modify  his  ofi'ensive  doctrines,  if  he  desired  to  avoid  official 
censure.  The  Faculty,  doubtless,  might  have  performed 
this  painful  duty,  in  a  more  public  manner.  They  might 
have  held  an  open  Court;  they  might  have  despatched  their 
officer  for  the  offender,  who  is  said  to  have  been  suffering, 


82 

at  the  time,  under  bodily  indisposition;  they  might  have 
brought  him  from  his  sick  room,  before  a  gazing  audience, 
to  proclaim  their  judgment  on  his  discourse,  and  put  to 
him  the  humiliating  question.  Whether  he  would  confess 
his  error,  ralher  than  suffer  sentence  of  suspension  to  be 
recorded  against  him.  And  if  they  thought  fit  to  pursue  a 
less  public  method, — if  they  indulged  a  feeling  of  tender- 
ness towards  the  sensitive  character  and  infirm,  health  of 
Dr.  Pusey,  and  therefore  deputed  his  own  personal  friend, 
Dr.  Jelf,  to  make  the  same  proposal  to  him,  in  his  own 
private  chamber,  and  with  all  the  delicate  consideration 
which  affection  and  esteem  could  inspire, — I  must  con- 
fess that  I  cannot  see,  in  this  part  of  the  proceeding,  any 
indifference  to  the  rights  of  Dr.  Pusey,  nor  any  defect  of 
courtesy  or  kindness  of  which  he  or  his  followers  could 
justly  complain. 

And  as  to  the  third  objection,  that  the  judgment  of  the 
Theological  Faculty  was  made  up  in  a  private  room  and 
over  a  tea  table,  I  am  sorry  that  any  mind  of  religious  prin- 
ciple and  strong  sense  should  lay  hold  of  such  a  trifle,  in 
order  to  cover  with  ridicule  an  act  of  serious  and  solemn 
duty.  If,  as  I  have  shown,  it  be  the  invariable  rule  for 
every  Theological  Faculty  to  try  the  orthodoxy  of  books 
and  published  discourses  by  a  private  examination,  then,  I 
presume,  it  must  be  granted,  that  there  could  be  no  injustice 
to  Dr.  Pusey  in  appropriating  a  private  room  to  a  private 
meeting.  And  if,  in  the  course  of  the  evening's  labours, 
the  customary  beverage  of  tea  was  introduced,  I  am  quite 
at  a  loss  to  understand  how  so  innocent  a  refreshment  could 
prejudice  the  doctrines  of  Dr.  Pusey's  sermon.  It  has 
been,  indeed,  a  rule  of  temporal  Courts,  that  a  jury  should 
neither  eat  nor  drink  until  they  had  agreed  upon  their  ver- 
dict. But  it  will  be  something  new  to  learn  that  the 
judges  must  not  swallow  a  cup  of  tea  or  coffee,  during  a 
short  recess,  to  refresh  them  in  the  progress  of  an  exhaust- 


83 

ing  trial,  without  exposing  their  official  decisions  to  public 
reproach  and  crimination. 

1  should  not  have  adverted  to  this  subject  at  all,  if  I  had 
not  seen,  with  much  regret,  that  some  of  my  respected  and 
beloved  brethren  have  indulged  themselves  in  a  tone  of  se- 
vere rebuke  with  regard  to  the  officers  of  that  noble  Uni- 
versity, which  I  cannot  reconcile  with  the  rules  of  Chris- 
tian comity  towards  a  foreign  institution,  nor  with  the 
course  which  we  should  expect  from  the  clergy  of  our 
mother  Church,  if  our  own  official  acts  were  passed  in  re- 
view before  them.  It  does  not  argue  well  for  the  true  in- 
terests of  Christian  peace,  that  we  should  be  over-hasty  in 
censuring  the  authorities  of  England  for  matters  with 
which  we  have  no  direct  concern;  and  it  would  doubtless 
be  wise  in  us  to  pause,  before  we  sacrifice  the  small  remains 
of  real  unity  which  the  strifes  of  past  years  have  left  us, 
to  an  Utopian  scheme  of  Catholic  unity,  which  is  probably 
about  as  likely  to  be  realized  as  the  Elixir  vitas  or  the  Phi- 
losopher's stone.  But  since  others  have  spoken  so  strongly 
in  defence  of  Dr.  Pusey,  I  have  thought  it  an  act  of  justice 
to  state  my  personal  opinion  on  the  other  side,  if  only  to 
show,  that  there  are  some  amongst  us  who  are  ready  to 
sustain  the  rights  of  wholesome  discipline,  and  to  render  to 
the  official  judgment  of  our  English  friends,  a  fair  measure 
of  the  same  confidence  which  we  should  claim  from  them 
in  turn. 

And  now,  my  respected  and  beloved  brethren,  as  I  pro- 
pose to  devote  my  next  Letter  to  the  novel  case  of  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Carey's  ordination,  which  has  been  the  occasion 
of  exciting  amongst  us  such  an  unexampled  ferment,  I 
shall  add  no  more  to  this  communication.  I  trust  impli- 
citly to  your  kind  indulgence,  if  I  have  bestowed  more  la- 
bour than  was  necessary  upon  the  present  theme.  Cut  the 
well-known  fact,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  is  the 
great  centre  of  the  whole  Sacramental  theology,  fully  jus- 
tifies, in  my  humble  judgment,  the  best  effort  in  our  power, 


84 

to  place,  on  firm  ground,  the  true  teaching  of  the  Church 
on  that  highly  important  subject.  It  concerns  us  most 
nearly,  that  Baptism  and  the  Eucharist  be  kept  in  their 
true  place,  as  holy  Sacraments,  "  outward  and  visible  signs  of 
inward  and  spiritual  grace,  given  to  us,  ordained  by  Christ 
himself,  as  a  means  whereby  we  receive  the  same,  and  a  pledge 
to  assure  us  thereof,"  and  to  be  highly  reverenced  and  duly 
used  by  all  who  would  be  the  heirs  of  salvation.  We  must 
therefore  beware,  lest  we  injure  the  interests  of  piety  by 
disparaging  the  proper  rank  and  dignity  of  these  blessed 
ordinances.  But  we  are  equally  bound  to  beware,  lest  we 
dishonour  the  majesty  of  Christ,  and  grieve  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit, by  an  excessive  magnifying  of  their  positive  effects,  or 
an  idolatrous  veneration  of  their  outward  elements.  Ir- 
reverence and  SUPERSTITION  are  the  Scylla  and  Charyb- 
dis  of  religion,  and  it  will  profit  us  little  if,  in  order  to  avoid 
being  dashed  against  the  rocks  upon  the  one  side,  we  must 
be  ingulfed  by  the  whirlpool  upon  the  other.  May  the  Lord, 
of  his  infinite  mercy,  grant  us  the  constant  direction  of  his 
heavenly  wisdom,  that  his  Church  may  be  safely  guided 
between  them,  to  the  haven  of  eternal  peace  and  joy. 

Your  faithful  brother. 

And  servant  in  Christ, 

JOHN  H.  HOPKINS. 


Burlington,  Vermont, 
January  16,  1844. 


JEhe  flobeltfes  iDlitch  tiisturt  our  33eace. 


A  FOURTH  LETTER 
ADDRESSED 

TO    THE 

BISHOPS,  CLEl^GY,  AND  LAITY, 

OF    TEE 

Jprotcstant  Episcopal   (!ll)ttvcl) 

IN  THE   UNITED  STATES. 


JOHN    HENRY    HOPKINS,    D.  D., 

BISHOP   OF   THE    DIOCESE    OF   VERMONT. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

H.  HOOKER,  178  CHESNUT  STREET, 

(opposite  masonic  hXll.) 

1844. 


KINfJ    AXn     BAIRD,   PRIJfTERR. 


FOURTH  LETTER,  &c. 


Respected  and  beloved  Brethren, — 

In  this,  my  fourth  and  conchiding  address  to  you, 
on  the  Novehies  which  disturb  our  peace,  but  which — 
I  thank  God — have  no  power  to  destroy  it,  I  have  to 
soUcit  your  kind  indulgence  on  a  variety  of  topics, 
which  would  bear  a  far  more  extended  investigation. 
Thechief  of  these,  however,  is  the  theological  notion, 
that  the  tenets  of  the  Council  of  Trent  may  be  recon- 
ciled to  Catholic,  or  in  other  words,  to  primitive  and 
orthodox  doctrine.  This  idea  has  been  for  the  first 
time  eliminated  in  the  recent  ordination  of  Rev.  Ar- 
thur Carey  by  my  highly  esteemed  brother,  the  Bishop 
of  the  diocese  of  New  York  ;  and  I  cannot  discharge 
what  appears  to  be  an  act  of  obligation  to  the  Church 
of  God,  without  discussing  the  principal  points  in- 
volved in  that  interesting  transaction,  and  suggesting 
the  best  practicable  safeguard  against  future  difficul- 
ties. A  few  observations  upon  the  system  of  Rome 
compared  with  Tractarianism,  the  general  scope  of 
the  sacramental  theology,  the  theory  of  priestly 
power,  and  the  strange  attempt  made  of  late  to  beat 
down  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  and  un- 


protestantize  the  Church  of  England,  will  bring  these 
Letters  to  a  close,  and  relieve  my  own  mind,  at  least, 
of  what  I  have  long  felt  to  be  a  most  painful  and 
oppressive  duty. 

In  entering  upon  the  questions  connected  with  Mr. 
Carey's  ordination,  I  beg  leave  to  premise,  that  there 
are  probably  very  few  men  in  the  Church,  or  in  the 
world,  who  have  a  higher  or  more  affectionate  regard 
for  my  youthful  brother  in  the  ministry,  than  I  pro- 
fess to  cherish.  Consigned,  by  his  estimable  father, 
o  my  care,  in  A.  D.  1833,  he  remained  a  constant 
inmate  in  my  family  until  1837,  the  class-mate  of  my 
eldest  son,  and  accounted  as  one  of  my  own  children. 
In  my  house,  he  and  his  elder  brother  passed  through 
the  studies  appropriate  to  the  Freshman  year  in  Col- 
lege, and  the  larger  portion  of  the  Sophomore,  under 
the  tuition  of  thorough  and  accomplished  instructors; 
and  were  forthwith  received  into  the  Sophomore  class 
of  Columbia  College,  where  they  earned  an  honora- 
ble rank,  and  sustained  a  most  pure  and  elevated 
character.  And  when,  after  graduating  with  uncom- 
mon credit  at  that  excellent  institution,  I  was  informed 
that  my  young  friend  and  beloved  pupil  had  become 
a  candidate  for  holy  orders,  I  shall  not  undertake  to 
describe  the  gratitude  to  God  which  the  intelligence 
inspired,  nor  the  deep  interest  with  which  I  listened 
to  the  best  accounts  of  his  consistent  piety  and  re- 
markable attainments,  from  time  to  time. 

I  should  be  very  reluctant  to  publish  facts  of  this 
description,  if  it  were  not  for  the  opportunity  which 
it  affords  me  to  do  justice  to  Mr.  Carey's  personal 
claims,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  assign  a  reason,  on 


the  other,  for  my  absolute  confidence  in  himself, 
while  I  shall  be  compelled  to  question  the  consistency 
of  some  of  his  opinions,  with  the  act  of  his  ordina- 
tion. Whatever  may  be  the  error  in  judgment  which 
the  case  presents,  it  can  hardly  be  charged  on  him 
with  justice  or  propriety.  I  take  it  for  granted  that 
he  only  studied,  with  all  the  undoubting  confidence 
of  youth,  those  productions  of  our  Oxford  brethren, 
which  were  eminently  attractive  in  themselves  to  a 
thoughtful  and  a  pious,  but  inexperienced  mind,  and 
which  were,  moreover,  warmly  advocated  and  re- 
commended by  many  of  the  best  theologians  around 
him.  And  who  can  wonder,  if,  under  such  circum- 
stances, the  very  prestige  connected  with  the  time- 
honored  University  of  Oxford,  awakened  the  strongest 
enthusiasm  in  an  English  heart,  and  gave  every  pos- 
sible advantage  to  the  lessons  of  those  divines  who 
had  already  set  the  Church  of  his  native  land  in  such 
unwonted  commotion  ?  Nor  was  it  strange,  inde- 
pendently of  all  national  partiality;  for  when  has 
the  world  beheld  such  a  band  of  intellects,  combined 
in  such  an  enterprise  ?  The  startling  energy  of  Fronde, 
the  lovely  poetry  of  Keble,  the  learned  mysticism  of 
Pusey,  the  profound  yet  simple  eloquence  of  New- 
man, the  tact  and  directness  of  Percival,the  straight- 
forward and  unflinching  honesty  of  Hook,  the  scho- 
lastic exactness  and  ponderous  erudition  of  Palmer, 
the  varied  power  and  sparkling  -brilliancy  of  the 
British  Critic,  to  say  nothing  of  a  host  of  auxiliaries 
in  every  form  of  taste  and  feeling,  operating  in  every 
quarter  of  the  vast  ecclesiastical  field,  church  music, 
church  painting,  church  architecture,  church  history, 

1* 


church  ritual,  and,  unhappily,  church  doctrine — in 
tales  for  the  young,  and  arguments  for  the  old,  in 
grave  truth  and  amusing  fiction,  while  the  whole 
tended  to  the  same  end  with  marvellous  strength  and 
harmony  ?  No,  the  result  is  not  strange,  when  we 
look  back  upon  the  wonderful  union  of  capacities, 
which,  for  ten  successive  years,  had  been  laboring  to 
produce  it.  And  no  one  who  has  been  brought  with- 
in the  influence  of  that  charmed  circle,  who  can  re- 
verence the  aspect  of  piety,  or  honor  learning,  or 
sympathize  with  zeal,  or  appreciate  refined  sentiment, 
or  admire  the  prismatic  splendors  of  an  almost  uni- 
versal genius,  will  be  likely  to  wonder  at  the  strong 
impression  produced  upon  the  minds  of  others,  how- 
ever thankful  he  may  feel  that  the  overruling  Provi- 
dence of  God  has  said  to  it.  Thus  far  shalt  thou  go, 
and  no  farther — however  fervently  he  may  suppli- 
cate the  Almighty  Bestower  of  all  good,  that  not  one 
of  that  gifted  band  may  be  finally  lost  to  the  ranks 
of  Christian  truth,  or  be  deluded  so  far  as  to  mistake 
the  Church  of  Rome  for  the  true  Catholic  Church  of 
the  Redeemer. 

Regarding,  therefore,  the  case  of  Mr.  Carey  as  the 
natural  result  of  his  position,  knowing,  as  I  think  I 
do,  the  peculiar  capacities  with  which  the  Lord  has 
endowed  his  intellect,  and  confident  in  the  rectitude  of 
purpose  which  I  doubt  not  the  grace  of  God  has 
established  in  his  heart,  I  am  under  no  anxiety  about 
the  ultimate  soundness  of  his  theological  principles. 
Nor  do  I  question,  in  the  least,  that  if  it  should  please 
the  Most  High  to  prolong  his  life  until  age  and  expe- 
rience, under  the  divine  blessing,  have  given  ripeness 


to  his  powers,  he  will  stand  in  the  front  rank  of  those 
authors  whose  writings  shall  be  quoted  by  future 
generations  in  the  Church,  with  confidence  and 
praise. 

But  all  this,  however  satisfactory  with  respect  to 
the  probable  result  in  this  particular  instance,  has 
nothing  to  do,  in  strictness  of  argument,  with  the 
serious  question,  whether  a  candidate,  holding  the 
opinions  imputed  to  Mr.  Carey  at  the  time,  ought  to 
have  been  ordained  at  all.  I  am  aware,  indeed,  that 
this  is  said  by  some  to  be  a  question  which  ^concerns 
only  the  diocese  of  New  York,  and  her  highly 
esteemed  bishop.  And  therefore  it  is  thought  to  be 
an  invasion  of  his  peculiar  province,  if  any  other 
bishop  should  express  his  disapproval.  But  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  saying  that  this  is  quite  a  mistaken  idea. 
Nor  shall  I  believe,  unless  upon  his  own  direct  asser- 
tion, that  the  bishop  of  New  York  himself  holds  any 
such  unfraternal  and  thoroughly  anti-episcopal  doc- 
trine. On  the  contrary,  I  feel  quite  confident  that  all 
our  bishops  admit  the  general  and  connnon  interest 
which  the  entire  body  must  take  in  questions  of  ordi- 
nation. For  no  man  can  enter  the  ministry  of  a 
separate  diocese  without  becoming,  at  the  same  mo- 
ment, a  minister  of  the  whole  Church.  His  letters  of 
orders,  accompanied  by  the  usual  certificate  of  dis- 
mission, entitle  him  to  claim  his  ministerial  rights 
from  every  other  bishop,  as  perfectly  as  from  him 
who  ordained  him.  And  consequently  the  grounds 
and  qnalifications  which  are  acted  upon  by  any  one 
bishop,  concern  every  part  of  the  Church  alike,  and 
must  therefore  be  equally,  in  every  quarter,  open  to 


8 

a  candid  review,  and,  if  need  ]»e,  to  a  frank  though 
afl'ectionate  animadversion. 

It  is  fnrther  an  obvious  result  from  the  very  object 
of  the  sacred  office,  that  there  is  nothing  of  such  car- 
dinal importance  to  the  interests  of  the  gospel  and 
the  welfare  of  the  Church,  as  the  qualifications  of 
the  ministry.  They  are  ordained  as  the  guides,  the 
teachers,  the  authorised  examples  of  the  flock  of 
Christ.  If  the  guide  does  not  know  the  road,  how 
shall  he  direct  the  traveller  ?  If  the  teacher  be  igno- 
rant, how  shall  the  scholar  learn?  Or  in  the  emphatic 
words  of  our  Lord  himself,  If  the  blind  lead  the 
blind,  shall  not  both  fall  into  the  ditch  ?  Hence 
the  Church  has  laid  down  the  rules  in  her  gene- 
ral canons,  for  the  qualifications  of  candidates  for 
holy  orders  :  from  which  canons  no  bishop  or  diocese 
is  at  liberty  to  depart.  But  I  risk  nothing  in  assert- 
ing that  the  Church  does  not  contain  an  individual, 
by  whom  a  serious  or  wilful  contempt  of  those  whole- 
some laws  would  be  visited  with  more  unsparing  re- 
prehension than  the  bishop  of  New  York  himself. 
His  whole  ministerial  life  has  been  distinguished  by 
a  strict  and  even  punctilious  regard  to  every  rule  of 
ecclesiastical  obligation.  And  if,  therefore,  under 
new  and  peculiar  circumstances,  he  may  seem  to 
have  erred  in  judgment — for  who  is  infallible  P-^^it 
needs  no  argument  to  prove  what  all  will  cordially 
and  spontaneously  concede,  that  it  must  have  been 
an  error  of  the  head,  and  not  of  the  heart. 

I  pass  on,  accordingly,  to  consider  the  aspect  of  this 
novel  case,  and  shall  premise  a  statement  of  the  facts, 
which  I  shall  endeavor  to  put  into  a  shape  free  from 
every  possible  objection. 


In  A.  D.  1842,  Mr.  Carey  completed  a  full  course 
of  three  years'  theological  study  at  the  General  Semi- 
nary in  New  York,  passed  his  examinations  with 
great  credit,  and  might  have  been  ordained  without 
scruple,  or  delay,  if  he  had  not  lacked  a  year  of  the 
age  of  twenty-one,  under  which  the  Canons  of  the 
Church  allow  no  one  to  receive  Holy  Orders,  His 
habits  were  those  of  a  devoted  student,  and  as  he 
naturally  felt  a  strong  attachment  to  the  associations 
of  the  semhiary,  he  resolved  to  continue  there  in  the 
character  of  a  resident  graduate,  until  the  time  of  his 
ordination  should  arrive.  Having  attached  himself 
meanwhile  to  the  Church  of  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  and 
become  a  teacher  of  his  Sunday-school,  he  applied 
to  him,  at  the  proper  period,  for  the  usual  certificate. 
Before  the  paper  was  delivered,  however,  Dr.  Stnith 
had  reason  to  apprehend  that  Mr.  Carey  had  adopted 
the  Tractarian  theology,  to  an  extent  which  he  con- 
sidered inconsistent  with  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel 
as  set  forth  in  the  standards  of  the  Church.  As  a 
matter  of  conscientious  duty,  therefore,  and  calling  to 
his  assistance  the  Rev.  Dr.  Anthon  ;  the  difficulty  was 
communicated  to  the  bishop,  who  promptly  directed 
a  special  examination  in  the  presence  of  himself,  Drs. 
Smith  and  Anthon,  and  six  other  clergymen,  for  the 
purpose  of  investigating  how  far  there  was  any  real 
ground  for  doubtnig  Mr.  Carey's  soundness  in  the 
faith. 

The  decision  of  the  board,  thus  constituted,  was 
not  unanimous.  The  bisliop  and  the  six  presbyters 
approved  of  Mr.  Carey's  tjjeological  qualifications 
Drs.    Smith  and  Anthon,  on   the  other  hand,  were 


10 

satisfied  that  he  had  become  a  perfect  convert  to  the 
Tractarian  school,  and  did  not  hold  the  true  sense  of 
the  thirty-nine  Articles.  Understanding,  however, 
that  their  objections  were  over-ruled,  and  perceiving 
no  other  regular  mode  of  preventing,  what  they  re- 
garded as  a  precedent,  fraught  with  danger  to  the 
soundness  pf  our  future  ministry,  they  resolved  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  which  the  ordi- 
nation service  allowed,  in  the  question  which  the 
bishop  is  bound  to  address  to  the  people ;  requiring 
them,  if  they  know  of  any  crime  or  impediment  in 
the  person  about  to  be  ordained,  to  come  forth  and 
declare  it  in  the  name  of  God. 

Accordingly,  having  intimated  their  intention  to 
the  bishop,  the  Rev.  Drs.  Smith  and  Anthon  repaired 
to  St.  Stephen's  Church,  where  the  ordination  was  to 
be  held,  on  the  appointed  Sunday,  habited  as  clergy- 
men in  our  cities  usually  are  on  that  holy  day,  and 
took  their  place  among  the  congregation.     At  the 
proper  time,  when  the  bishop  addressed  the  people 
in  the  words  of  the  ordinal,  they  rose  and  read  their 
objections  to  Mr.  Carey's  ordination,  in  the  form  of 
a  written  protest.     The  bishop  replied  that  these  ob- 
jections had  been  already  laid  before  him  by  the  same 
gentlemen,  had   been  thoroughly  investigated,  and 
judged  to  be  not  sustained  ;  and  therefore  he  should 
proceed  with  the  ordination.     Immediately  after  this 
annunciation,  Drs.  Smith  and  Anthon  withdrew  from 
the  Church,  and  the  candidate  was  ordained.     Their 
conduct  was  forthwith  stronglyassailed  in  the  columns 
of  the  Churchman,  which  rendered  it  proper  for 
them,  in  self-defence,  to  publish  a  statement  of  their 


11 

reasons.  This  statement  called  forth  a  variety  of 
answers,  and  an  unexampled  agitation  arose  through- 
out the  Church,  in  which  the  secular  press  engaged 
with  zealous  emulation.  The  tempest  of  conflicting 
feelings  and  opinions  thus  unhappily  excited,  will 
probably  continue  long,  before  it  passes  into  calm 
and  sunshine  ;  but  we  may  well  hope  in  God,  be- 
loved brethren,  that,  like  storms  in  the  material 
world,  it  will  serve  to  purify  the  spiritual  atmosphere, 
and  brace  our  whole  Church  into  renewed  health  and 
vigor. 

A  number  of  novel  and  important  questions  have 
been  raised  by  this  deeply  interesting  occurrence, 
which  I  shall  now  proceed  to  examine,  according  to 
the  best  light  which  I  have  been  able  to  obtain. 
They  may  be  reduced  to  three  :  First,  as  to  the  va- 
lidity of  the  objections  to  the  ordination  of  the  can- 
didate ;  secondly,  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  course 
taken  by  the  protesting  clergymen  ;  and  thirdly,  as 
to  the  judgment  of  the  bishop. 

It  is  neither  pleasant  nor  necessary  to  attempt  the 
reconcilement  of  the  apparently  conflicting  statements 
with  regard  to  the  facts  which  took  place  during  Mr. 
Carey's  examination.  I  would  merely  observe  that 
the  contrariety  is  often  more  apparent  than  real,  and 
may  be  sufficiently  accounted  for,  as  I  conceive, 
without  the  shghtest  impeachment  of  veracity  on 
either  side,  by  making  due  allowance  for  the  particu- 
lar aspect  in  which  the  parties  severally  regarded  the 
points  under  discussion,  and  for  the  extreme  difficulty 
which  the  best  men  experience  in  doing  full  and  per- 
fect justice  to  the  opinions  of  an  antagonist.     Expe- 


12 

rience  has  always  proved  that  this  difficulty  is  not  a 
little  increased  by  theological  zeal,  and  it  is  usually 
brought  to  its  utmost  height,  when  the  decision  aflects 
the  personal  claims  or  rights  of  a  third  party. 

Avoiding,  therefore,  the  whole  of  this  debated 
ground,  it  is  enough  for  me  to  adopt  the  pamphlet  of  ^ 
my  friend.  Rev.  Professor  Haight,  who  was  one  of 
the  six  presbyters  in  favor  of  the  ordination,  and 
who,  of  course,  must  have  taken  the  most  kindly 
view  of  Mr.  Carey's  side  of  the  question.  And  one 
item  of  this  pamphlet  will  embrace  all  that  the  case 
seems  to  me  to  require,  which  I  shall  proceed  to 
quote  in  the  language  of  its  estimable  author. 

"  In  regard  to  the  Council  of  Trent,"  saith  Pro- 
fessor Haight,  "I  understood  Mr.  Carey  simply  to 
say,  that  the  doctrinal  decrees  of  that  Council,  apart 
from  the  damnatory  clauses  (which  bind  them  as 
articles  of  faith  upon  the  consciences  of  Romanists,) 
taken  in  their  literal  sense,  and  not  as  interpreted  by 
the  writings  of  Bishops  and  Doctors  of  the  Romish 
communion,  were  not,  in  his  opinion,  absolutely  irre- 
concilable with  the  Catholic  faith." — "  Now  this  is  a 
very  different  thing  from  saying  that  he  adopted  the 
decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  as  his  confession  of 
Faith,  or  that  he  would  choose  to  express  his  own 
belief  on  any  given  point  in  their'  language.  He 
simply  gives  it  as  his  opinion — let  it  go  for  what  it  is 
worth — that  the  naked  words  of  those  decrees,  with 
the  above  limitation,  and  without  reference  to  the 
Romish  system  as  generally  displayed,  and  as 
gathered  from  the  teaching  of  her  divines,  are  sus- 
ceptible of  an  interpretation  not  inconsistent  with  the 


13 

received  doctrines  of  the  Universal  Church.  It  is  an 
exceedingly  charitable  view  of  the  subject,  some  may 
call  it  a  very  loose  and  imsafe  view  ;  still  it  does  not 
follow  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  he  who  holds  it  is 
unsound  in  the  faith." 

In  selecting  this  particular  portion  from  all  the  rest, 
I  am  actuated  mainly  by  the  desire  to  regard  the  case 
in  the  most  favorable  light  of  which  it  is  susceptible. 
And  I  confess  myself  most  reluctantly  compelled  to 
say,  that  this  single  opinion,  deliberately  avowed  and 
defended,  is  enough,  in  my  mind,  to  prove  a  disquali- 
fication. Let  me  endeavor  to  explain  the  reasons 
which  have  led  me  to  this  conclusion. 

First  then,  I  hold  that  nothing  but  a  corruption  of 
the  faith  can  justify  our  glorious  Reformation.  Cor- 
ruptions in  practice,  in  morals,  in  interpretation,  in 
any  and  every  imaginable  form,  may  exist,  but  while 
the  system  of  doctrine  remains  pure,  there  can  be  no 
true  ground  for  entire  and  total  separation.  This  was 
the  argument  which  not  simply  excused  our  mother 
Church  for  taking  her  stand  against  the  papacy,  but 
made  it  her  solemn  duty  to  protest  against  all  the 
corruptions  which  the  Roman  Church  had  added  to 
the  true  faith,  and  to  which  she  claimed  absolute 
adherence  from  every  soul,  under  the  fearful  penal- 
ties of  temporal  ruin  here,  and  eternal  misery  here- 
after. 

Therefore  our  19th  Article  expressly  asserts  that 
the  Church  of  Rome  hath  erred,  not  only  in  their 
living  and  manner  of  ceremonies,  but  also  in  matters 
of  faith.  And  the  most  important  portions  of  the 
other  Articles  are  devoted  to  the  protesting  against 


14 

those  several  points  in  which  the  errors  of  Rome  con- 
sisted. In  making  this  assertion,  I  except,  of  course, 
the  first  five  Articles,  which  treat  of  the  Trinity,  the 
Incarnation  of  Christ,  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  descent  of 
our  Lord  into  the  place  of  departed  spirits,  and  his 
glorious  Resurrection ;  not  because  I  would  depre- 
ciate their  paramount  importance, — God  forbid  ! — 
but  because,  if  the  Articles  had  said  nothing  of  them, 
they  would  still  have  been  secured  in  the  Creeds,  the 
Litany,  and  the  other  offices  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.  Selecting,  however,  only  a  few  from  the 
remainder  of  these  admirable  documents  of  religious 
truth,  let  us  see  how  the  Church  and  the  Council  of 
Trent  will  agree  together. 

The  6th  Article  sets  forth  the  correct  Canon  of 
Scripture,  asserting  that  it  contains  all  things  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  and  denying  that  any  thing  which 
is  not  contained  therein  shall  be  required  as  an  article 
of  faith ;  thus  directly  opposing  the  claims  of  Tradi- 
tion, and  accounting  as  Apocryphal  no  less  than  four- 
teen distinct  writings,  which  the  Council  of  Trent 
commands  to  be  received  with  as  much  reverence  as 
any  portion  of  the  real  Word  of  God.*   Now  in  this 

*  Decretum  de  Canonicis  Scripturis. 

Sacro-sancta  'oecumenica  et  geneialis  Tridentina  Synodus, — per- 
spiciensque  banc  veritatem  et  disciplinam  contineri  in  libris  Scriptis, 
et  sine  scripto  traditionibus,  quae  ab  ipsius  Christi  ore  ab  Apostolis 
acceptae,  aut  ab  ipsis  Apostolis,  Spiritu  Sancto  dictante,  quasi  per  manus 
traditae,  ad  nos  usque  pervenerunt,  orthodoxorum  patrum  exempla 
secuta,  onines  libros  tarn  veteris  quam  novi  Testamenti,  cilm  utriusque 
unus  Deus  sit  auctor,  necnon  iradifiones  ipsus,  turn  adjidem,  turn  ad 
mores  pertinenfes,  tanquim  vel  ore  tenus  a  Christo,  vel  a  Spiritu 
Sancto  dictatas,  et  continue,  successione  in  Ecclesia  Catholica  conser- 
vatas,  pari  pietatis  affedu  ac  reverentia  suscipii,  et  veneratur. 


15 

single  Article  there  are  three  distinct  propositions, 
embracing  in  their  details  a  multitude  of  questions 
concerning  the  authority  of  Tradition  in  matters 
which  Rome  holds  to  be  de  fide.  So  ttiat  if  there 
were  no  other  quarrel  betwixt  us  than  this  alone,  it 
is  sufficient  to  keep  us  apart  for  ever. 

The  11th  Article  asserts  the  cardinal  doctrine  of 
Justification  by  Faith,  or,  as  the  Church  of  England 
expresses  it,  By  faith  only,  to  which  the  Council  of 
Trent  stands  strongly  opposed,  confounding  justifica- 
tion with  sanctification,  making  our  Baptism  the 
instrumental  cause  of  our  first  justification,  our 
good  works  the  instrumental  cause  of  its  subsequent 
increase,  and  our  inherent  righteousness  the  ground 
of  our  final  acceptance.  So  serious  and-nmportant  is 
the  difference  here,  that  the  Tractarian  divines  have 
made  the  most  determined  and  persevering  attacks 
upon  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  not  hesitating  to 
brand  it  as  the  "  Lutheran  heresy ^^  and  even  plac- 
ing it  below  heathenism  itself.* 

*  Thus  the  British  Critic,  (Ixiv.  391)  does  not  scruple  to  use  this  lan- 
guage, "The  very  first  aggression,  then,  of  those  who  labour  to  revive 
some  degree  at  least  of  vital  Christianity,  (in  the  room  of  those  gross 
corruptions  and  superstitions  which  have,  in  these  latter  days  among 
ourselves,  overlaid  and  defaced  the  primitive  and  simple  truth,)  their 
very  first  aggression  must  be  upon  that  strange  congeries  of  notions 
and  practices,  of  which  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  Justification  is  the 
origin  and  representative.  Whether  any  one  heresy  has  ever  infested 
the  Church,  so  hateful  and  un-Christian  as  this  doctrine,  it  is  per- 
haps not  necessary  to  determine;  none,  certainly,  has  ever  prevailed 
so  subtle  and  extensively  poisonous." — "  We  must  plainly  express  our 
conviction,  that  a  religious  heathen,  were  he  really  to  accept  the  doc- 
trine which  Lutheran  language  expresses,  so  far  from  making  any 
advance,  would  sustain  a  heavy  loss,  in  exchanging  iundamental  truth 
for  fundamental  error." 


16 

The  12th  Article  places  good  works  hi  their  true 
Ught  "as  the  fruits  of  faith,  and  pleasant  and  accept- 
able to  God,  although  they  cannot  put  away  our  sins 
and  endure  the  severity  of  God's  judgment."  Here 
is  a  plain  opposition  to  the  Council  of  Trent  declar- 
ing,* that  the  justified  are  in  no  respect  deficient, 
hut  may  be  considered,  as  fully  satisfying  the  divine 
law  {as  far  as  is  compatible  with  their  present  con- 
dition) by  their  works  lohich  are  wrought  in  God, 
and  as  really  deserving  eternal  life,  to  be  bestowed 
in  due  time, — for  this  is  called  our  righteousness, 
because  we  are  justified  thereby,  through  its 
indwelling  in  us. 

The  22d  Article  is  directed  against  the  Romish 
doctrine  concerning  Purgatory,  Pardons,  Worship- 
ping and  Adoration  as  well  of  Images  as  of  Relics, 
and  also  the  Invocation  of  Saints,  calling  this  doc- 
trine, "  a  fond  thing,  vainly  invented,  and  repugnant 
to  the  Word  of  God."  Now  of  all  these,  the  Council 
of  Trent  treats  more  or  less  at  large,  and  a  consider- 
able Treatise  would  be  required  to  point  out  the 
detailed  corruptions  of  truth,  and  sad  superstitions  in 
practice,  which  are  virtually  condemned  by  the  com- 
prehensive language  of  the  Article.  The  style  of 
argumentation  in  which  the  famous  Tract  No.  90 

*  Decretum  de  Justificatione,  Gap.  xvi.  De  fructu  justificationis,  hoc 
est,  de  merito  bonorum  operum,  &c. 

— Nihil  ipsis  juslificatis  amplius  deesse  credendum  est,  qu6  minfis 
plene  illis  quidem  operibus,  quae  in  Deo  sunt  facta,  divina  legi  pro  hujus 
vitae  statu  satisfecisse ;  et  vita^n  aternam  suo  etiam  tempore,  si  tamen 
in  gratia  decesserint,  consequendam,  vere  promeruisse  censeantur,  &c. 
Quae  enim  justitia  nostra  dicitur,  quia  per  earn  nobis  inficBrentem  justifi- 
camur. 


17 

endeavored  to  evade  this  and  some  other  of  our 
doctrines,  is  so  unworthy  of  its  author,  and  so  de- 
grading to  tiie  framers  of  our  Articles,  that  it  is  one 
of  the  standing  wonders  of  the  age  how  an  Episco- 
palian could  write,  or  the  Church  could  endure,  such 
a  production. 

The  24th  Article  condemns  the  Roman  doctrine,  in 
holding  religious  service  in  the  Latin  tongue,  without 
any  regard  to  the  question  whether  it  can  be  under- 
stood by  the  people.  And  here  again*  is  a  positive 
contrariety  to  the  Council  of  Trent. 

The  26th  Article  denies  that  five  out  of  the  Seven 
Roman  Sacraments  ought  to  be  accounted  as  such;  in 
which  list,  that  most  important  subject  of  Penance 
occurs,  and  the  doctrine  of  Rome  concerning  it  is 
said  to  have  ^^  grown  out  of  a  corrupt  following  of 
the  Jipostles.^^  It  is  quite  incomprehensible  to  my 
mind  how  any  one  can  approve  the  decrees  of  Trent 
upon  the  Sacrament  of  Penanoi,\  and  at  the  same 

*  Doctrina  de  Sacrificio  Missse.  Cap.  viii.  Missa  vulgari  lingua  non 
celebretnr. 

Etsi  Missa  magnam  contineat  populi  fidelis  eruditionem;  non  tamen 
expedire  visum  est  Patribus,  ut  vulgari  passim  lingua  celebraretur,  &c. 

f  Doctrina  de  Sanctissimis  PoenitentisB  et  Extremae-Unctionis  Sacra- 
mentis. 

Cap.  I.    De  necessitate  et  institutione  Sacramenti  Poenitentiae. 

Sacramentum  Pceniientise,  quo  lapsis  post  Baptismum,  beneficium 
mortis  Christi  applicatur. 

potestatem  remittendi  et  retinendi  peccata,  ad  reconciliandos 

fideles,  post  Baptismum  lapsos,  Apostolis  et  eorum  legitimis  succes- 
soribus  fuisse  communicatum,  universorum  Patrum  consensus  semper 
intellexit. 

Cap.  V.     De  Confessione. 

Doiiiuius  noster  Jesus  Christus,  e  terris  ascensurus  ad  ccclos, 


IS 

time  approve  tlie  doctrine  of  our  Church,  for  if  ever 
there  was  a  set  of  plain  contrarieties,  they  may  be 
found  here.  Indeed  this  Article  alone  contains  more 
than  twelve  propositions,  in  which  the  two  Churches 
are  not  to  be  reconciled  by  any  fair  process  of  rea- 
soning. 

The  28th  Article  expressly  condemns  the  Roman 
doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  and  defines  the  spirit- 
ual presence  of  Christ  so  as  to  limit  it  to  the  faithful 
receiver.  And  here  we  have  corrected  a  large  circle 
of  error,  in  open  contradiction  to  the  Council  of 
Trent,*   so   that    the   notion   which  reconciles   that 

sacerdotes  sui  ipsius  Vicarios  reliquit,  tamquam  praesides  et  judices  ; 
ad  quos  omnia  mortalia  crimina  deferantur,  in  quae  Christi  fideles  ceci' 
derint ,  qu6  pro  potestate  clavium  remissionis  aut  retentionis  pecca- 
torum,  sententiam  pronuntient. 

Cap.  VI.     De  ministro  hujus  8acramenti,  et  Absolutione, 

Quamvis  autera  Absolutio  sacerdotis  alicui  beneficii  sit  dispen- 

satio ;  tamen  non  est  soMm  nudum  ministerium,  vel  annuntiandi 
Evangelium,  vel  declarandi  remissa  esse  peccata ;  sed  ad  instar  actus 
judicialis  ;  quo  ab  ipso,  velut  a  judice,  sententia  pronuntiatur. 

Cap.  VII.     De  Casuum  reservatione. 

Unde   merit6   Pontifices  Max.  pro  suprema  potestate  sibi   in 

Ecclesia  universa  tradita,  causas  aliquas  criminum  graviores  suo 
potuerunt  peculiari  judicio  reservare. 

Cap.  Vf  II.     De  satisfactionis  necessitate  et  fructu. 

Debent  ergo  sacerdotes  Domini — pro  qualitate  criminum,  et 

pocnitentium  facultate,  salutares  et  convenientes  satisfactiones  injun- 
gere. 

*  De  Sacro-sancto  Eucharistise  Sacramento. 

Canon  2.  8i  quis  dixerit,  in  sacro-sancto  Eucharistise  Sacramento 
remanere  substantiara  panis  et  vini  und,  cum  corpore  et  sanguine 
•  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  negaveritque  mirabilem  illam  et  singularem 
conversionem  totius  substantise  panis  in  corpus,  et  totius  substantive 
vini  in  sanguinem.  manentibus  dumtaxtlt  speciebus  panis  et  vini ;  quam 
quidem  conversionem  Cathohca  Ecclesia  aptissim6  Transubstantionem 
appellat ;  Anathema  sit. 


19 

Council  to  Catholic  antiquity,  and  at  the  same  time 
maintains  that  we  are  in  agreement  with  the  same 
Catholic  antiquity,  strikes  a  plain  mind  with  perfect 
astonishment. 

The  30th  Article  condemns  the  Roman  doctrine  of 
withholding  the  cup  from  the  Laity.  But  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent*  pronounces  a  curse  upon  any  one,  who 
shall  deny  that  Christ  is  whole  and  entire  under  the 
species  either  of  the  bread  or  the  wine,  and  in  every 
particle  of  the  same. 

The  31st  Article  rejects  the  sacHfice  of  propitiatory 
masses,  "  in  which  it  was  said  that  the  Priest  did  offer 
Christ  for  the  quick  and  the  dead,  to  have  remission 
of  pain  and  guilt,"  as  being  a  "blasphemous  fable  and 
dangerous  deceit."  That  this  doctrine  was  not,  as  the 
Tractarian  theologians  would  persuade  themselves, 
the  vulgar  error  of  Romanists,  but  the  doctrine  of 
that  corrupt  Church  herself,  is  manifest  from  the 
whole  body  of  her  divines  for  ages  before  the  Refor- 
mation, and  the  Council  of  Trent  was  so  far  from 
reforming  it,t  that  they  expressly  confirmed  the  whole. 

*  Canon  3.     Si  quis  negaverit,  in  venerabili  Sacramento  Eucha- 
ristise  sub  unaquaque  specie,  et  sub  singulis  cujusque  specie!  partibus, 
separatione  facta,  totum  Christum  contineri ;  Anathema  sit. 
r       -[•  Doctrina  de  Sacrificio  MissaB. 

Cap.  II.  Sacrificium  missae  esse  propitiatorium  tam  pro  vivis 
quam  pro  defunctis. 

Et  quoniam  in  divino  hoc  sacrificio,  quod  in  missa  peragitur,  idem 
ille  Christus  continetur,  et  incruente  immolatur,  qui  in  ara  crucis 
semel  seipsum  cruente  obtulit ;  docet  Sancta  Synodus,  sacrificium 
istud  vere  propitiatorium  esse.  Quare  non  solum  pro  fidelium  vivorum 
peccatis,  poenis,  satisfactionibus,  et  aliis  neccssitatibus,  sed  et  pro  de- 
functis in  Christo  nondum  ad  plenum  purgatis,  rite,juxta  Apostolorum 
traditionem,  offertur. 

Cap.  VI.     De  Missa  in  qua  solus  sacerdos  communicat. 


V      20 

The  32d  Article  condemns  the  Roman  doctrine  of 
priestly  Celibacy,  in  which  also*  we  stand  opposed 
to  the  Trentine  Council. 

Now  here  are  between  twenty  and  thirty  danger- 
ous errors  in  the  faith,  taught  by  the  Council  of  Trent, 
and  condemned  by  our  Articles  ;  and  yet  a  candidate 
shall  be  thought  qualified  to  be  ordained  as  a  minis- 
ter of  our  Church,  who  thinks  the  decrees  of  Trent 
not  "  absolutely  irreconcilable^'  with  the  Catholic, 
meaning  thereby  the  pure,  apostolic,  and  primitive 
doctrine !  * 

"  It  is,"  saith  Rev.  Professor  Haight,  "  an  exceed- 
ingly charitable  view  of  the  subject,  some  may  call 
it  a  very  loose  and  unsafe  view,  still  it  does  not  fol- 
low, as  a  matter  of  course,  that  he  who  holds  it  is 
unsound  in  the  faith."  Tliis  remark  of  my  esteem- 
ed friend  and  brother  suggests  a  few  observations, 
which  I  think  have  been  rather  overlooked  on  that 
side  of  the  controversy. 

There  is  a  certain  official  fitness  required  on  be- 
half of  the  candidate  for  holy  orders,  which  no  other 
q^^iality  can  supply.  A  man  may  not  be  unsound  in 
the  faith  which  is  essential  to  his  own  salvation, 

Nee  tamen  (Sacro-sancta   Synodus)   Missas  illas   in   quibus  ^ 

"      .  .   .  .       ^ 

solus  sacerdos  sacramentaliter  communicat,   ut  privatas   et   illicitas 

damnat,  sed  probat,  atque  ade6  commendat. 

•  De  Sacramento  Matrimonii. 

Can.  9.  Si  quis  dixerit  Clericos  in  sacris  ordinibus  constitutos,  vel 
Regulares,  casiitatem  solemniter  professos,  posse  matrimonium  contra- 
here,  contractumque  validum  esse,  non  obstante  lege  ecclesiastica,  vel 
vote ;  et  oppositumnil  aliud  esse,  quam  damnare  matrimonium ;  posse 
que  omnes  contrahere  matrimonium,  qui  non  sentiunt  se  castitatis, 
etiam  si  earn  voverint,  habere  donum ;  Anathema  sit. 


21 

and  yet  profess  an  honest  belief  in  a  hundred  errone- 
ous notions.  He  may  be  a  thorough  Romanist,  Uke 
Pascal,  or  Fenelon,  and  yield  a  mental  acquiescence 
to  every  corruption  of  their  creed,  while  yet  his 
heart  clings  to  Christ,  and  his  actual  trust  and  confi- 
dence are  neither  in  the  virgin,  nor  in  the  saints,  nor 
in  the  sacraments,  nor  in  his  own  good  works,  nor  in 
the  power  of  the  priesthood,  but  in  God  his  Saviour. 
Thousands  of  men,  I  doubt  not,  have  lived  and  died 
in  the  communion  of  that  corrupt  Church  of  Rome, 
who  were  Protestants  in  their  real  faith,  that  is,  in 
the  doctrines  which  their  hearts  have  acknowledged. 
But  suppose  such  persons  to  be  under  examination 
for  the  ministerial  office,  and  to  avow,  in  plain  lan- 
guage, that  they  believed  our  thirty-nine  Articles, 
taken  in  their  literal  sense,  were  not  absolutely  irre- 
concilable with  Catholic  doctrine,  I  ask  any  man  of 
common  sense  whether  the  Church  of  Rome  would 
think  them  qualified  to  receive  the  ministerial  com- 
mission, merely  because  they  professed,  at  the  same 
time,  their  entire  consent  to  the  decrees  of  the  Trent- 
iiie  Council,  and  therefore  could  not  be  directly  con- 
demned as  unsound  in  the  faith  ?  Would  not  such  a 
notion  be  taken  as  decisive  evidence,  that  whether 
*ey  were  sound  in  their  personal  faith  or  not,  they 
could  not  expect  consistently  to  be  authorized  to 
teach  others  ;  that  the  Church  of  Rome  wanted  men 
who  knew  how  to  proclaim  her  doctrines,  and  con- 
demn all  that  had  gone  out  from  her  under  the 
pretence  of  a  Reformation,  and  that  the  man  who 
was  not  ready  to  teach  as  that  Council  taught,  was 


22 

unfitted  for  her  purpose,  however  great  his  other 
merits  might  confessedly  be  ? 

But  if  this  would  be  correct  reasoning  on  the  part 
of  Rome  towards  us,  is  it  not  equally  applicable  to 
our  position  with  respect  to  Rome  ?  Does  it  follow, 
tliat  because  we  do  not  condemn  the  soundness  in  the 
faith  of  a  particular  individual,  we  must  therefore 
grant  that  he  is  to  be  trusted  as  an  authorised  and 
commissioned  leader?  Because  we  may  think  it 
highly  probable  that  Pascal  and  Fenelon  are  now  in 
the  Paradise  of  the  just,  should  we,  therefore,  if  they 
were  on  earth  again,  be  ready  to  ordain  them  ?  Or  if 
we  should  marvel  at  the  inconsistency  of  Rome,  in 
ordaining  a  candidate  who  openly  declared  that  he 
did  not  think  our  Articles  irreconcilable  with  sound 
doctrine,  should  we  not  marvel  as  much  at  the  ordi- 
nation of  one  amongst  ourselves,  who  regarded  the  ' 
decrees  of  Trent  with  equal  complacency  ? 

It  is  not  enough,  therefore,  in  the  case  of  a  candi- 
date for  holy  orders,  that  he  have  competent  learning 
and  piety,  and  be  not  unsound  in  his  own  faith.  He 
must  be,  in  the  language  of  the  canonical  certificate, 
"  Apt  and  meet  to  exercise  the  ministry  to  the  glory 
of  God  and  the  edifying  of  the  Church,"  and  if  h^ 
is  not  honestly  believed  to  possess  a  reasonable  mea- 
sure of  this  fitness  for  the  work,  we  have  no  real 
authority  to  ordain  him.  Hence  we  are  obliged  to 
examine  him  for  the  very  purpose  of  ascertaining 
whether  the  mind,  and  spirit,  and  character  of  the 
Church  are  in  him.  The  Church  is  a  Bef armed 
Church :  Is  he  prepared  to  justify  her  reformation  ? 


^ 


23 

The  Church  is  a  Protestant  Church, — emphatically 
and  distinctly  such,  because  her  duty  to  protest 
against  error,  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  inseparable 
from  the  right  of  refoum.  Is  he  ready  to  repeat  her 
protest,  to  defend  its  duty,  and  to  demonstrate  its 
truth  ?  The  Church  is  a  Catholic  Church,  that  is,  a 
branch  of  the  ancient.  Universal  Church  of  Christ, 
in  contradistinction  from  all  heresies  and  schisms.  Is 
he  thoroughly  persuaded  of  this  fact,  and  ready  to 
assert,  against  all  gainsayers,  but  chiefly  and  pre- 
eminently against  that  corrupt  system  which  would 
fain  be  called  i\\e'only  Catholic  Church,  the  purity 
and  faithful  consistency  of  her  doctrines  ?  If  not,  let 
him  be  put  back  awhile  until  he  learns  to  understand 
the  office  which  the  Church  expects  of  him.  He 
may  have  piety,  he  may  have  learning,  he  may  have 
all  high  moral  and  intellectual  capacities,  he  may  be 
sound  in  the  essentials  of  his  individual  faith  so  far 
as  concerns  his  own  salvation.  But  all  this  he  might 
be,  without  any  of  the  distinctive  principles  which 
can  alone  authorize  us  to  clothe  him  with  the  com- 
mission of  the  ministry.  Our  power  to  give  him  this 
commission  is  a  soleynn  trust,  delegated  to  us  on  cer- 
tain specified  conditions.  And  if  those  conditions, 
or  any  of  them,  be  manifestly  wanting,  we  have, 
strictly  speaking,  no  legal  right  to  ordain. 

My  esteemed  friend  and  brother.  Professor  Haight, 
does  himself,  indeed,  seem  to  hold  the  same  views, 
substantially,  in  the  following  passage,  (p.  167:) 
"  That  the  clergy  who  consent  to  the  ordination  of  a 
candidate,  and  the  bishop  who  ordains  him,  are  to 
be  held  responsible  for  all  his  opinions,  no  Church- 


'       24 

man,  I  presume,  will  venture  to  assert.     If  his  doc- 
trines are  in  conformity  with  the  doctrines  of  our 
standards — his  honesty,  intelligence,  piety,  and  gen- 
eral  fitness   being   granted — nothing  more   can   be 
demanded  of  him."     To  this  I  cheerfully  subscribe. 
It  is  the  very  ground  of  my  difficulty,  that  the  doc- 
trines of  Mr,  Carey  did  not  agree  with  the  doctrines 
of  our  standards ;  not  with  the  Homilies,  not  with  the 
Articles,  not  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformers  who 
accomplished  the  blessed  work,  in  the  midst  of  every 
obstacle,  and  sealed  it  with  their  blood.     For  how 
could  it  be  inferred  from  any  of  those  standards,  that 
the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  are  not  absolute- 
ly irreconcilable  with  the  truth  of  the  gospel  ?    If 
not  absolutely  irreconcilable,  they  may  be  reconciled. 
If  not  false,  they  must   be   true.     He  that  is  not 
against  us,  saith  our  divine  Master,  is  on  our  part. 
And  again,  he  that  is  not  with  me  is  against 
ME.     In  the  things  of  God,  therefore,  we  know  no- 
thing of  a  medium  between  falsehood  and  truth. 
There  are  confessedly  things  indifferent,  about  which 
men  may  argue  to  the  end  of  the  world,  without  af- 
fecting the  character  of  their  Church,  or  the  honor  of 
the  gospel.     But  the  mind  of  a  Churchman  seems  to 
me  under  a  strange  cloud,  when  he  can  reckon  the 
merits  of  the  Romish   controversy  amongst  them. 
For  on  our  having  the  truth  with  us,  in  that  contro- 
versy, depends  our  very  being  as  a  Church,  our  cha- 
racter as  Christ's  ministry,  our  right  to  ordain,  our 
power  to  preach,  our  justification  before  men,  and, 
more  than  all,  our  justification  before  the  throne  of 
the  "  King  eternal,  immortal,  and  invisible." 


25 

I  am  aware,  indeed,  that  my  esteemed  brother 
would  claim  a  distinction  here  which  my  argument 
has  overlooked.  It  is  the  distinction  between  opin- 
ions and  doctrines;  a  distinction  sometimes  very  real 
and  tangible,  and  sometimes  very  delusive  and  vain. 
Perhaps  I  may  be  understood  more  clearly,  however, 
if  I  illustrate  my  meaning  by  a  hypothetical  ex- 
ample. 

■  Suppose,  then,  that  a  candidate  for  Orders  should 
tell  his  examiners  that  he  had  formed  an  opinion — 
only  an  opinion — that  the  Koran  of  the  impostor 
Mahomet  was  not  absolutely  irreconcilable  with 
truth ;  that  in  some  respects  Mahomedanism  had  the 
advantage  over  Christianity,  and  that  he  could  not 
precisely  decide  which  was  the  better  religion  of  the 
two.  Now  is  it  possible  to  believe  that  such  an 
opinion,  declared  to  his  examiners,  and  therefore  per- 
fectly known  by  them  to  be  really  entertained  by  the 
candidate,  would  not  be  deemed  a  disqualification  ? 
Would  it  be  competent  for  him  to  say,  "  I  do  not  hold 
this  as  a  doctrine,  it  is  only  my  individual  opinion. 
I  shall  not  preach  it,  nor  teach  it ;  and  as  I  hold 
and  subscribe,  ex  animo,  if  you  please,  to  all 
the  Articles,  principles,  worship  and  discipline  of 
the  Church,  you  may  rely  on  my  faithfulness  and 
official  consistency."  Would  not  the  plain  answer 
to  such  a  statement  be,  "  My  friend,  we  do  not  ques- 
tion your  good  intentions,  but  your  scheme  of  con- 
duct involves  an  absurdity.  Your  opinion  may  be 
called  what  you  please,  hut  so  long  as  you  hold  it, 
you  cannot  preach  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  be- 
cause you  do  not  believe  them  in  your  own  heart. 

3 


26 

You  have,  indeed,  become  so  mystified  upon  the  sub- 
ject, that  it  is  plain  you  do  not  at  present  see  the 
gross  inconsistencies  of  your  position,  else  you  would 
not  have  so  frankly  avowed  it.  But  we  cannot  be- 
come accessories  to  such  a  fearful  error.  May  God 
give  you  repentance,  and  bring  you  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth." 

Now  here,  I  admit,  is  an  extreme  case ;  but  cer- 
tainly it  suits  my  purpose  in  proving,  that  the  dis-* 
tinction  between  opinions  and  doctrines  cannot  save  a 
candidate's  consistency,  when  it  so  happens  that  they 
are  diametrically  opposed  to  each  other.  For  not  a 
whit  more  subversive  of  Christian  faith  is  the  opinion 
that  Mahomedanism  may  be  reconciled  to  truth,  than 
it  is  subversive  of  our  Protestant  Church  to  hold  the 
opinion  that  the  Couacil  of  Trent  may  be  reconciled 
to  sound  primitive  doctrine.  Nay,  on  some  accounts, 
the  half-way  Turk  would  have  a  better  apology  than 
the  half-way  Romanist.  He  might  say,  and  truly, 
that  Mahomet  adopted  the  Scriptures,  and  admitted 
the  mission  of  Christ,  and  considered  him  the  son  of 
God  in  the  Socinian  sense,  and  represented  him  as 
occupying  a  place  in  the  seventh  heaven.  He  might 
plausibly  insist,  moreover,  that  he  had  a  right  to  think 
as  he  pleased  about  the  matter,  because  it  was  not 
mentioned  in  the  Standards  of  the  Church  at  all,  and 
therefore,  it  was  impossible  to  show  the  contrariety 
except  by  indirect  inference  and  implication.  And 
he  might  fairly  argue  that  on  all  topics  of  the  Bible 
and  the  Prayer  Book,  except  a  very  few,  he  could 
preach  without  difficulty.  The  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture, the  unity  and  attributes  of  God,  the  mission  of 


27 

the  prophets  and  of  Christ  himself,  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, the  future  state,  all  the  moral  virtues,  the  effi- 
cacy of  prayer,  fasting,  and  good  works,  would  all 
be  left  to  him  as  common  ground ;  and  the  few  ex- 
pressions of  the  Litany  and  the  Creeds  which  might 
produce  a  difficulty,  could  be  gotten  over  by  the 
aid  of  the  reasoning  in  Tract  No.  90.  Above  all,  he 
might  say,  that  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  a  vigor- 
•  ous  urging  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Articles  so  far  as  the 
Reformation  was  concerned ;  for  with  all  his  private 
leaning  towards  Mahomedanism,  he  had  not  the  least 
doubt  of  the  awful  corruption  of  the  Church  of 
Rome. 

And  yet,  all  this  would  not  save  him  from  rejec- 
tion. The  case  would  be  too  clear  for  argument, 
because  on  this  subject,  there  has  been  nothing  to 
lead  our  minds  astray  from  the  simplicity  of  truth. 

I  cannot  therefore,  consent  to  tolerate  this  novel 
system,  which  maintains  that  Romanism,  as  de- 
fined by  the  Council  of  Trent,  may  be  reconciled 
to  pure  Christianity,  merely  because  it  is  professed  as 
an  opinion,  and  not  as  a  doctrine.  Because  so  long 
as  the  individual  entertains  that  opinion,  it  will  be 
absurd  to  expect  him  to  feel  like  a  true  son  of  the 
Reformation.  He  cannot,  without  violating  his  con- 
science, preach  plainly  and  distinctly  upon  the  various 
corruptions  which  the  Homilies  and  the  Articles 
detail.  He  cannot  condemn,  in  strong  and  decided 
terms,  the  idolatrous  worship  of  the  Virgin  mother, 
nor  the  invocation  of  saints,  nor  the  veneration  of 
images  and  relics,  nor  the  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation,  nor  the  merit  of  our  own  good  works,  nor 


28 

any  other  point  in  controversy.  He  can,  indeed, 
preach  upon  a  large  scope  of  faith  and  practice, 
without  recurring  to  Rome  at  all ;  and  he  may  possi- 
bly be  quite  a  useful  and  a  respectable  man,  if  he  can 
only  contrive  to  bury  this  opinion  in  his  own  bosom. 
But  he  must  either  have  very  little  conscience,  or 
very  extraordinary  self-control,  to  persevere  in  the 
effort  to  conceal  it.  And  if  he  could,  what  right  have 
we  to  ordain  men  whose  opinions  are  such,  that  they 
cannot  promulgate  them  without  defeating  the  very 
object  of  their  ministry  ?  Is  not  the  fact  that  the 
opinion  must  not  be  openly  avowed,  sufficient  evi- 
dence to  prove  that  it  ought  not  to  be  held  at  all  ? 

I  do  not,  however,  desire  to  pass  by  the  argument 
which  my  respected  and  beloved  brethren  seem  to 
think  so  satisfactory,  namely,  that  the  Church  has 
always  allowed  the  most  liberal  range  of  sentiment 
on  other  subjects,  namely,  on  Calvinism,  Arminian- 
ism,  and  Episcopacy ;  from  whence  the  conclusion 
is  deduced  that  a  correspondent  laxity  or  even  con- 
rariety  of  sentiment  must  be  allowed,  with  respect 
to  Rome.  It  may  be  owing  to  my  own  obtuseness 
that  I  cannot  see  the  relevancy  of  this  reasoning. 
But  assuredly  it  was  not  Calvinism,  nor  Arminianism, 
nor  Episcopacy,  which  produced  the  struggles  of  the 
Reformation.  These  were  not  the  questions  which 
filled  Germany  with  slaughter,  and  brought  the  mar- 
tyrs of  England  to  prison  and  to  death.  Our  candi- 
dates may  construe  the  Articles  in  the  Calvinistic  or 
the  Arminian  sense,  and  they  may  think  episcopacy 
a  divine  or  a  human  institution,  and  yet  leave  every 
important  doctrine  of  the  blessed  Reformation  pre- 


29 

cisely  as  it  was  before.  But  if  they  begin  to  tolerate 
the  Council  of  Trent,  and  fancy  its  decrees  reconcilable 
with  pure  primitive  Christianity,  it  appears  perfectly 
incontrovertible  to  me,  that  they  virtually  subvert 
the  foundation  of  our  whole  reform,  and  convert  our 
Apostolic  Church  into  a  band  of  Schismatics.  Nothing 
therefore,  seems  to  my  mind  more  obvious,  than  the 
paramount  importance  of  this  vital  question.  If 
Rome  can  be  proved  to  be  doctrinally  right,  we 
must  be  doctrinally  wrong.  To  prove  that  we  are 
both  right,  and  yet  to  admit  and  defend  the  principles 
or  the  act  of  the  Reformation,  is  a  manifest  contra- 
diction. 

Such,  then,  being  my  own  humble  judgment  on 
the  subject  of  the  qualifications  of  the  candidate,  and 
thus  far  agreeing  with  Drs.  Smith  and  Anthon  in 
thinking  that  he  was  not,  according  to  the  true  spirit 
and  meaning  of  the  Ordinal  and  the  Canons,  ready 
to  be  ordained,  the  next  question  arises,  namely : 
Were  they  right  or  wrong,  in  openly  protesting 
against  the  ordination? 

And  here,  I  think  it  due  to  those  reverend  brethren 
to  say,  that  they  plainly  sought  for  a  regular  and 
legal  mode  of  attaining  an  object  of  high  and  im- 
portant principle.  They  acted  on  an  established  part 
of  the  service  appointed  by  the  Church,  and,  as  they 
conceived,  in  strict  conformity  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Rubric.  What  deprived  them  of  a  right  given  to 
every  member  of  that  congregation  ? 

It  is  said  first,  that  the  right  is  given  to  the  people, 
that  is,  the  laity  ;  and  secondly,  that  these  objectors, 
being  clergymen,  had   free  access  to  the  bishop  in 

3* 


30 

their  clerical  capacity,  and  had  actually  used  their 
privilege  already :  hence  it  is  deemed  absurd  that 
they  should  use  it  again. 

In  answer  to  the  first  part  of  this  argument,  I  must 
confess  myself  unable  to  see  that  a  right,  given  by 
the  Church  to -every  layman  present  at  an  ordination, 
is  lost  forever,  if  such  layman  becomes  a  clergyman. 
Can  any  other  case  be  shown  in  which  the  clergy 
must  no  longer  presume  to  use  the  privileges  of  the 
laity?  Is  it  indeed  a  principle  of  sound  construction, 
that  a  layman,  having  certain  rights  as  such,  forfeits 
them  all  as  soon  as  he  becomes  a  clergyman  ?  This 
is,  to  me,  a  very  novel,  and  I  must  needs  think,  per- 
fectly indefensible  idea.  The  clergyman  doubtless 
acquires  certain  official  rights  by  his  ordination,  but  he 
loses  no  right  which  he  had  before,  unless  it  be  such 
as  is  either  incompatible  joer  se  with  the  sacred  func- 
tion, or  is  made  incompatible  by  positive  ecclesiastical 
law.  Hence,  as  neither  of  these  can  be  alleged,  these 
clergymen  had  the  same  right  to  act  on  the  exhorta- 
tion which  the  ordinal  addresses  to  the  people,  as 
they  had  to  sit  amongst  the  people,  and  become,  for 
the  time,  a  part  of  the  congregation. 

The  second  branch  of  the  argument,  however,  has 
more  apparent  force ;  since  it  is  a  very  plausible  idea 
that  these  clergymen  had  exercised  their  privilege 
already,  and  the  Church  could  not  mean  to  give  them 
two  distinct  modes  of  doing  the  same  thing. 

At  the  first  view  of  the  transaction,  I  was  inclined 
to  adopt  this  opinion  ;  but  further  reflection  has  led 
me  to  doubt,  whether  the  information  given  to  the 
Bishop,  and  the  private  examination  held  thereupon, 


SI 

weffe  the  thing  which  the  Church  intended  to  insure 
to  the  pubUc  objection  in  the  Ordinal.  Let  us  look 
to  the  language  of  the  Prayer  book,  which  is  as  fol- 
lows, viz. 

"  And  if  any  great  crime  or  impediment  be  object- 
ed, the  Bishop  shall  cease  from  ordering  that  person, 
until  such  time  as  the  party  accused  shall  be  found 
clear  of  that  crime." 

Now  an  important  question  arises  on  these  words, 
viz.  By  what  mode  is  the  party  to  he  found  clear  of 
the  alleged  crime  or  impediment  ?  Br  a  regular, 
CANONICAL  TRIAL,  conductcd  according  to  the  esta- 
blished laws  of  the  Church,  or  by  an  informal, pri- 
vate examination  ?  By  the  first,  as  it  would  seem  to 
me  ;  because  no  accuse^person  can  be  found  "  clear" 
of  an  alleged  crime,  without  a  trial ;  or  at  least  with-' 
out  an  examination  conducted  according  to  some 
known  forms  of  law.  And  as  the  language  of  the 
rubric  embraces  not  only  crimes  but  impediments, 
and  doctrinal  unsoundness  is  an  impediment  of  the 
most  extensive  kind,  which  may  vary  from  the 
lightest  shades  of  error,  up  to  the  most  grievous 
heresy,  it  seems  plain  that  the  interests  of  the  Church, 
the  character  of  the  candidate,  and  the  rights  of  the 
accusers,  would  all  require,  that  a  decision  so  grave 
and  important  should  be  attained  in  the  most  canoni- 
cal, complete  and  satisfactory  manner. 

If  this  reasoning  be  correct,  the  result  will  be,  that 
Drs.  Smith  and  Anthon  had  not  had  the  kind  of  in- 
vestigation which  the  Ordinal  contemplated.  That 
what  they  desired  was  what  the  rubric  had  expressly 
provided   for,  namely,  a   canonical,  regular,  legal 


32 

investigation.  And  it  would  certainly  be  a  strange 
anomaly  in  our  system,  if  a  single  layman,  making 
public  objection  according  to  the  Ordinal,  should 
have  a  right  to  a  more  solemn,  strict  and  thorough 
examination  of  the  charge,  than  the  Church  intended 
to  allow,  where  the  same  charge  was  made  at  the 
same  time  and  under  the  same  circumstances,  by  two 
doctors  of  divinity. 

There  is  one  argument  more,  however,  advanced 
upon  the  other  side,  and  that  is  derived  from  a  new 
meaning  of  tlie  word  impediment;  which  is  inge- 
niously supposed  to  exclude  all  theological  unsound- 
ness, and  to  embrace  only  acts  or  habits  of  vice  or 
immorality.  I  acknowledge  myself  quite  unable  to 
perceive  the  authority  for  tiUs  definition.  If  such 
were  the  meaning  of  the  Church,  I  presume  the  lan- 
guage would  have  been  the  familiar  word,  m,isde- 
meanour,  instead  of  the  much  more  comprehensive 
term,  impedim,ent.  It  is  not  impossible,  indeed,  that 
our  General  Convention  may  think  fit  to  affix  this 
meaning  to  the  word,  for  the  future  ;  but  they  cannot 
extend  such  a  novelty  so  as  to  give  it  a  retrospective 
operation  on  the  past.  If  Congress  cannot  create  a 
crime  by  an  ex  post  facto  law,  it  would  seem  very 
hard  that  the  Church  should  make  an  ofience  by  an 
ex  post  facto  interpretation. 

I  must  frankly  say,  therefore,  that  Drs.  Anthon 
and  Smith,  in  my  humble  judgment,  had  sufficient 
ground  for  their  objection,  and  as  that  objection  was 
over-ruled  in  the  private  examination  of  the  candi- 
date, they  had  a  plain  riglit  to  make  their  public 
protest,  in  order  that  the  ordination  might  be  sus- 


33 

pended,  according  to  the  express  law  of  the  Church, 
until  the  candidate  should  have  been  found  "  clear," 
by  a  regular,  canonical  trial.  Their  leaving  the 
Church,  as  soon  as  they  were  told  that  their  objec- 
tion was  disregarded,  has  been  severely  censured, 
but  I  could  never  perceive  the  ground  of  censure. 
For  certainly,  they  were  compelled  either  to  leave 
the  Church,  or  else  to  take  part  in  the  very  ordination 
against  which  they  had  conscientiously  protested.  It 
will  hardly  be  thought,  I  presume,  that  it  would 
have  been  reverential  on  their  part  to  have  remained, 
without  uniting  in  the  prayers  and  responses  proper 
to  the  occasion.  And  yet  how  could  they  have  thus 
united,  when  they  honestly  believed  the  candidate 
unfit,  and  the  Bishop  mistaken  ? 

The  result  then,  in  my  mind — and  I  state  it  with 
deep  regret — is  quite  at  variance  with  the  decision  of 
my  highly-esteemed  brother,  the  Bishop  of  New 
York.  But  he  has  every  possible  claim  to  a  favorable 
construction  of  what — at  worst — can  only  be  consid- 
ered an  error  in  judgment,  to  which  the  best  men  are 
liable.  The  more  especially  as  the  case  was  new, 
and  he  must  have  felt  strongly  inclined  to  regard  it 
in  the  most  indulgent  light  for  the  candidate.  Let 
me  ask  a  few  moments'  consideration  to  what  seems 
to  my  mind  the  natural  course  of  his  reflections.  At 
least,  they  would  have  been  my  own,  on  such  an 
occasion ;  although  it  would  not  become  me  to  say, 
until  I  am  similarly  circumstanced,  how  far  they 
would  govern  my  decision. 

Here  is  a  youth  of  uncommon  piety,  talent  and 
learning,  who  is  plainly  devoted  to  the  Tractarian 


34 

school  of  Oxford.  He  is  but  just  twenty-one,  and  is 
only  to  be  admitted  to  the  diaconate,  where  he  can- 
not even  be  allowed  to  preach  without  a  special 
license,  which  can  be  at  any  moment  withdrawn. 
His  highly  respectable  connexions,  and  large  circle  of 
friends,  will  be  deeply  wounded  in  their  feelings  if 
he  is  put  back;  especially  as  a  full  year  has  already- 
elapsed  since  he  had  passed  most  honorably  through 
his  Seminary  course.  He  himself  will  probably  be 
powerfully  affected  by  such  a  public  censure,  and  his 
constitution,  already  enfeebled  by  severe  application, 
and  frail  at  best,  may  be  crushed  under  his  mental 
depression.  Why  should  such  a  dangerous  experi- 
ment be  tried,  when  the  Church  can  be  guarded  as 
surely  by  passing  gently  over  his  extreme  opinions 
upon  a  scholastic  subtlety  now,  and  recommending 
him  to  a  sounder  course  of  reading  and  reflection 
before  he  applies,  three  years  hence,  for  ordination  to 
the  priesthood?  At  that  time,  should  he  prove  un- 
sound, there  will  be  another  and  a  sufficient  oppor- 
tunity for  thorough  investigation,  and  he  can  be 
withheld  from  the  higher  ofhce  which  includes  the 
cure  of  souls.  Therefore,  on  the  whole,  is  it  not 
better  for  the  candidate,  better  in  view  of  his  future 
usefulness  to  the  Church,  better  for  the  sake  of  his 
estimable  friends  and  connexions,  that  he  should  be 
admitted  without  further  delay,  trusting  to  experience 
and  time,  under  the  influence  of  divine  grace,  for  the 
correction  of  opinions  which  now  seem  inconsistent, 
and  at  all  events  keeping  a  strict  guard  over  his  next 
examination  ? 

Now  surely  this  must  be  allowed  to  be  a  strong 


35 

case,  on  the  part  of  the  decision  formed  by  my  highly- 
esteemed  brother,  the  Bishop  of  New  York  ;  and  yet 
it  is  far  from  being  the  whole  of  what  probably 
occupied  his  thoughts,  when  employed  in  the  serious 
task  of  deliberation :  for  as  Drs.  Smith  and  Anthon 
expressly  state  that  his  mind  was  not  made  up  at  the 
close  of  the  private  examination,  it  may  well  be  sup^ 
posed  that  the  whole  of  the  intervening  day,  (Satur* 
day,)  was  spent  in  a  careful  and  anxious  survey  of 
all  the  direct  and  indirect  bearings  of  this  new  and 
difficult  question. 

The  next  set  of  inquiries,  therefore,  which  I  ven- 
ture to  presume  must  have  passed  through  his  mind, 
would  perhaps  be  such  as  the  following :  How  will 
the  rejection  of  this  interesting  and  most  conscientious 
young  man  affect  the  General  Theological  Seminary, 
and  its  valued  Professors  ?  Will  it  not  be  seized  on 
with  avidity  by  the  enemies  of  the  Church,  as  a  mani- 
fest proof  that  this  most  important  institution  is  infect- 
ed with  a  tendency  to  Popery,  when  even  the  Bishop 
himself,  who  is  already  supposed  to  be  somewhat 
over-friendly  to  the  Oxford  Tracts,  has  been  obhged 
to  reject  a  candidate  of  the  highest  merit,  for  no  other 
reason  than  his  having  imbibed  the  errors  of  that 
system  ?  Will  not  the  hue  and  cry  against  "  Pusey- 
ism"  be  thus  raised  to  such  a  height,  as  may  seriously 
injure  the  future  welfare  of  this  school  of  the  pro- 
phets, stain  the  professional  character  of  its  worthy 
and  talented  instructors,  and  even  extend  to  those 
excellent  and  long  experienced  men,  who  have  no 
sympathy  whatever  with  the  supposed  error?  And 
how  can  the  Bishop  repair  the  evils  which  an  exces- 


36 

sive  strictness  in  this  matter  may  make  him  instru- 
mental in  producing  ?  He  may  inflict  the  wound, 
but  he  cannot  heal  it.  He  may  open  a  breach  which 
he  cannot  close.  And  why  should  such  a  risk  be 
incurred  merely  on  account  of  a  single  example,  a 
novel  case,  which  never  occurred  before,  which,  with 
proper  care,  may  never  occur  again,  and  which  can- 
not produce  any  imaginable  evil,  if  due  attention  be 
paid  to  the  interval  which  must  be  spent  before  the 
candidate  is  presented  for  the  priesthood  ? 

There  is  yet  remaining,  however,  an  argument 
which  merits  some  serious  consideration.  The  bishop 
might  have  doubted  whether  it  was  just,  with  re- 
gard to  the  candidate  himself,  to  delay  his  ordination 
at  a  stage  like  this.  The  canons,  in  laying  down 
certain  requisites  for  ordination,  do  impliedly  autho- 
rize, as  it  were,  a  contract  with  every  candidate,  that 
if  he  fulfils  these  requisites,  he  shall  be  ordained :  and 
therefore  Mr.  Carey,  having  done  his  part  to  the  full 
extent,  and  even  more  than  was  required  by  an  extra 
year  of  study,  had  a  right  to  demand  the  fulfilment 
of  the  covenant  on  the  part  of  the  Church.  True, 
there  were  opinions  charged  upon  him  which  were 
believed  to  be  radically  inconsistent  with  her  doc- 
trines. But  ought  he  to  suffer  for  holding  such 
opinions,  so  long  as  he  evidently  could  not  see  their 
inconsistency,  and  was  not  prevented  from  subscrib- 
ing, ex  animo,  to  all  that  the  Church  required.-* 
Should  a  solemn  contract  be  thus  violated  on  the 
strength  of  a  new  hypothesis,  whiclrhad  started  up 
without  either  party  having  anticipated  it,  which  one 
party,  the  candidate,  did  not  believe  to  belong  to  the 


37 

main  question  at  all,  but  honestly  held  it  as  a  private 
speculation;  and  which  the  other  party,  the  Church, 
had  not  defined  as  yet,  while  her  ministers  held  it 
differently,  some  regarding  it  one  way,  and  some  in 
another?  Surely,  it  might  well  be  said,  that  contracts 
may  not  be  avoided  on  such  doubtful  grounds  as  this. 
The  candidates  for  the  ministry  have  certain  vested 
rights,  and  no  new  matter,  especially  when  it  is  of  a 
disputable  kind,  can  be  justly  suffered  to  despoil 
them. 

The  answer  to  all  this  is  sufficiently  obvious.  To 
the  first  it  may  be  truly  said,  that  the  bishops  have 
received  their  sacred  commission  under  the  solemn 
pledge  to  banish  and  drive  away  from  the  Church 
all  erroneous  and  strange  doctrines,  and  that  their 
highest  function,  the  power  to  ordain,  may  not  be 
lawfully  subjected  to  any  arguments  of  personal  re- 
gard or  expediency.  To  the  second,  that  the  best 
interests  of  the  General  Seminary  would  be  promoted 
instead  of  injured,  by  any  act,  which  proved,  to  the 
public  satisfaction,  a  strict  and  thorough  vigilance 
over  sound  doctrine,  especially  where  Rome  was 
concerned.  And  to  the  third,  that  the  candidate  can 
have  no  vested  x'x^his,  which,  in  the  reasonable  appre- 
hension of  his  examiners,  can  possibly  expose  the 
Church  to  danger.  His  inability  to  see  the  incon- 
sistency of  his  opinions  could  not  alter  they^/c/,  how- 
ever it  might  affect  our  feelings  towards  him  person- 
ally. The  ministry  is  only  to  be  conferred  on  those 
who  are  qualified.  The  qualifications  must  be  judged 
by  others,  and  the  very  existence  of  a  reasonable 
doubt  whether   the   candidate  possesses  them,  de- 

4 


38 

prives  him  of  all  right  to  complain,  because  it  lies 
upon  him  to  satisfy  the  Church  that  he  is  fit,  and  so 
long  as  there  is  ground  for  doubt,  the  evidence  can- 
not be  called  satisfactory.  Finally,  it  might  be  said, 
that  the  fear  of  evil  consequences  can  never  be  ad- 
mitted in  the  scale  against  positive  rules  of  obligation. 
It  is  our  part  to  fulfil,  so  far  as  in  us  lies,  \he  present 
duty,  and  leave  the  question  of  results,  in  humble 
faith,  to  that  overruling  Providence,  who  can  cause 
the  very  wrath  of  man  to  praise  him,  and  make  all 
things,  however  adverse  they  may  seem  to  our  short- 
sighted apprehensions,  ultimately  work  together  for 
good  to  those  that  love  him. 

Nevertheless,  although,  as  I  have  frankly  said,  my 
judgment  would  have  differed  from  that  of  my  re- 
spected brother,  yet  it  would  be  quite  unfair  to  deny 
that  his  probable  view  of  the  case  is  a  very  plausi- 
ble, amiable,  and  inviting,  if  not  a  very  strong  one* 
To  a  man  of  warm  and  generous  feelings,  I  can 
readily  imagine  that  the  appeal  on  the  side  of  Mr. 
Carey  would  be  very  hard  to  resist ;  and  I  honestly 
confess,  that  granting  it  to  be  a  mistaken  decision,  it 
seems  impossible  for  me  to  regard  it  witii  any  serious 
fear  or  apprehension.  It  was  a  novel  case,  in  all  re- 
spects, and  one  of  considerable  difficulty ;  there  was 
but  little  time  for  weighing  the  objections,  and  per* 
haps  but  little  of  that  preparation  of  mind  which 
could  perceive  their  force  :  and  if  ever  there  was  an 
error  of  judgment  which  could  claim  our  sympathy 
for  its  feelings,  our  respect  for  its  probable  motives, 
our  all-but-allowance  for  its  difficulties,  I  think  we 
may  find  it  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Carey's  ordination. 


39 

It  needs  but  small  wisdom,  after  we  have  made  a 
mistake,  to  tell  how  it  might  have  been  avoided.  We 
can  all  see,  now,  that  it  would  have  probably  saved 
the  Church  from  this  whole  intense  agitation,  if  the 
request  of  Drs.  Smith  and  Anthon  to  conduct  the  ex- 
amination in  writing  had  been  granted,  if  the  pre- 
vious paper  of  notes  had  been  admitted  in  evidence, 
and  if  but  one  week  had  been  allowed  to  give  the 
candidate  time  to  see  the  true  nature  of  the  difficulty 
before  him.  But  so  far  as  the  published  documents 
would  lead  one  to  infer,  there  was  quite  too  much 
feeling  on  the  occasion  to  allow  the  proper  exercise 
of  cool  and  calm  reflection  ;  perhaps  too  much  for  the 
exhibition  of  that  fraternal  confidence  and  Christian 
courtesy,  which  clergymen  owe  to  each  other,  but 
which,  when  under  the  influence  of  excitement,  they, 
like  other  men,  sometimes  forget  to  render.  And  thus 
has  the  v/hole  Church  been  thrown  into  an  unexam- 
pled state  of  alarm  and  consternation,  by  a  result, 
which  a  little  patient  allowance  for  the  honest  doubts 
of  the  objectors,  a  little  kindly  attention  to  their  con- 
scientious scruples,  a  little  wholesome  self-distrust, 
and  a  postponement  long  enough  to  give  the  whole 
matter  the  thorough  searching  which  its  importance 
deserved,  might,  under  God,  have  avoided.  But,  as 
I  have  said,  any  one  can  see  this  noiv,  when  the 
painful  results  are  before  us.  I  am  far  from  intend- 
ing to  insinuate  that  I  should  have  done  better,  or 
even  as  well,  under  the  same  circumstances.  Nor 
have  I,  for  myself,  the  slightest  doubt,  that  the  whole 
has  been  ordered  most  wisely  by  the  Providence  of 
our  heavenly  Father,  for  the  better  establishment  of 


40 

his  Church,  and  the  furtherance  of  his  blessed  gospel, 
by  the  opportunity  which  it  holds  out  for  future  pro- 
tection against  the  inroads  of  error,  for  securing,  in 
every  suspected  case,  the  fullest  inquiry,  for  clearer 
and  more  definite  views  of  doctrine,  especially  as  it 
regards  the  Roman  controversy,  and  for  the  adoption 
of  an  arrangement  by  which  the  conflicting  judg- 
ments of  our  bishops  may  be  regularly  submitted  to 
some  appellate  jurisdiction,  instead  of  being  spread 
in  open  contrariety  before  the  public  eye. 

With  no  desire,  therefore, — God  forbid  ! — to  en- 
courage strife  or  promote  dissension,  but  with  the 
hope  of  aiding,  according  to  my  humble  capacity,  in 
pointing  out  the  course  which  our  General  Conven- 
tion might  wisely  adopt,  to  guard  against  the  possi- 
ble recurrence  of  any  difficulty  hereafter,  and  thus  to 
turn  our  past  experience  to  the  true  account,  by 
making  it  the  ground-work  of  an  improved  system, 
I  have  frankly  considered  the  main  features  of  the 
case  before  us,  for  the  purpose  of  drawing  your  atten- 
tion, in  due  time,  to  the  best  practicable  mode  of  ac- 
complishing an  object  so  desirable  to  every  friend  of 
unity  and  peace. 

In  order  to  give  the  Church  the  full  benefits  of  a 
simple  and  complete  system,  three  measures  seem  to 
me  required. 

First,  that  we  should  have  but  one  code  of  canon 
law,  enacted  by  the  whole  Church  in  General  Con- 
vention, and  superseding,  of  course,  all  diocesan 
legislation. 

Secondly,  that  this  code  should  be  administered, 
in  each  diocese,  by  the  Bishop,  acting  as  judge,  with 


41 

the  assistance  of  a  certain  number  of  his  Presbyters, 
as  assessors. 

Thirdly,  that  from  the  judgment  of  each  bishop, 
an  appeal  should  lie,  under  proper  regulations  in 
every  case,  to  a  Board  or  Council,  consisting  of  not 
less  than  seven  bishops,  with  from  four  to  six  lay- 
men, in  the  capacity  of  advisers  and  assistants,  all  of 
whom  should  be  elected  by  joint  ballot  at  each  Gene- 
ral Convention,  and  should  hold  their  sessions  at  such 
time  and  place  as  the  President  of  the  Council  should 
appoint;  the  necessary  expenses  of  such  meeting 
being  provided  for  by  the  Church  at  large,  in  the 
same  manner  as  is  now  done  for  the  meetings  of  the 
General  Convention. 

I  shall  not  here  repeat  what  I  have  already  printed 
on  this  subject,  in  my  humble  work  called  "  The 
Primitive  Church,"  the  first  edition  of  which  was 
published  in  the  spring  of  1S35,*  It  maybe  well, 
however,  to  state  briefly,  on  the  present  occasion,  a 
few  general  reasons  for  some  such  arrangement  as  I 
have  proposed. 

We  have  about  twenty-seven  dioceses  in  the  vast 
territory  of  the  United  States,  with  one  General 
Theological  Seminary,  and  three  or  four  Diocesan 
Seminaries.  Our  Prayfr  Book,  containing  the  Arti- 
cles of  the  Church,  the  Ordinals,  the  worship,  and  a 
portion  of  our  discipline,  is  wisely  delivered  to  the 
General  Convention;  and  no  Bishop  nor  diocese  has 
power  over  a  single  word  of  those  inestimable  for- 

*  See  the  10th  ch.  of  the  Dissertation,  p.  378  of  second  edition,  as 
also  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  at  the  General  Convention 
of  1835,  p.  88,  &c. 

4* 


42 

mularies.  The  same  body  has  authority  to  make 
Canons  which  bind  the  whole  Church.  So  far,  all  is 
placed,  consistently  enough,  upon  the  only  practical 
principles  of  unity.  But  the  anomaly  begins  as  soon 
as  we  leave  the  language  of  the  law,  and  come  down 
to  the  work  of  interpretation.  Here  we  have  no 
standard  of  unity  at  all,  no  general  regulator,  no 
officer  of  the  Church,  and  no  constituted  body,  to 
whicli  we  can  appeal,  to  remedy  the  occasional  mis- 
takes of  judgment  to  which  all  are  liable.  There  is 
no  sufficient  respect  paid  to  the  decisions  of  ^any  one 
Bishop,  because  there  are  other  Bishops,  probably, 
who  may  think  differently,  and  thus  the  clergy  can- 
not always  be  expected  to  yield  with  cheerfulness, 
even  when  their  diocesan  may  be  right.  And  if  he 
should  be  wrong,  which  is  certainly  a  very  possible 
thing,  notwithstanding  his  purest  intentions  and  best 
efforts,  there  is  no  mode  of  rectifying  the  error. 
Hence,  of  necessity,  arise  complaints,  murmurs,  fac- 
tions, parties ;  and  good  men — yea,  some  of  our  best 
men — become  perfectly  conscientious  in  the  temper 
and  spirit  of  opposition  to  their  Bishop,  on  the  ac- 
knowledged ground,  that  they  have  no  other  mode 
of  preserving  their  rights,  or  of  guarding  the  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  them  free. 

Now  it  is  impossible  to  justify  a  condition  of  things 
like  this,  because  it  has  no  warrant  in  the  history  of 
the  Church,  none  from  the  Scriptures,  none  from  our 
mother  Church  of  England,  none  from  any  well- 
ordered  civil  commonwealth,  none  in  reason  or  com- 
mon sense.  In  the  Church  of  Israel  there  was  a 
complete  series  of  appeals.     In  the  early  Christian 


43 

Church  there  was  an  appeal  from  the  Bishop  to  the 
Metropolitan,  and  from  him  to  a  Provincial  Council. 
In  England  there  are  appeals  of  a  similar  kind, 
although,  unhappily,  their  system  is  so  trammeled 
by  its  subordination  to  the  civil  courts,  that  it  is  of 
very  little  use  to  them.  Nay,  the  Presbyterian 
and  Methodist  denominations  of  our  own  country, 
defective  as  they  are  in  some  most  important  points 
of  apostolic  order,  have  nevertheless  a  far  better 
provision  for  unity  of  judgment  than  ourselves. 
Hence  it  must  surely  be  granted,  that  in  some  way 
or  other  we  ought  to  sufiply  ihis  manifest  defect. 
And  although  the  shortness  of  the  period  since  our 
distinct  organization,  our  scattered  population,  and 
the  potent  conservatism  of  our  principles  in  other 
things,  have  enabled  us,  under  God,  to  dispense  with 
it  thus  far,  without  actual  schism  :  yet  as  long  as  our 
position  in  this  respect  presents  an  anomaly,  in  plain 
contradiction  to  all  our  acknowledged  maxims,  we 
cannot  hope  that  we  shall  always  escape  the  conse- 
quences. Nor  have  we  any  right  to  expect  that  a 
continued  miracle  will  keep  the  Church  together, 
while  we  refuse  to  employ  the  only  established 
instrumentality. 

Until  some  such  arrangement  is  carried  into  effec- 
tual operation,  I  do  not  see  any  hope  of  discipline  or 
lasting  concord;  and  the  recent  case  in  New  York 
may  serve  as  one  out  of  many  practical  illustrations. 
Had  the  decision  of  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion  been 
open  to  a  regular  appeal,  a  few  weeks  would  have 
settled  the  question,  and  would  probably  have  laid 
down  a  rule  by  which  he  himself  would  have  been 


44 

relieved  from  a  painful  responsibility,  and  his  clergy 
from  a  still  more  painful  opposition.  For  want  of 
this,  those  who  felt  aggrieved,  having  no  other 
remedy,  appeal  to  tiie  Cliurch  and  public  at  large, 
and  set  up  a  new  periodical  to  defend  what  they 
honestly  believe  to  be  true  Church  principles.  Will 
any  man  contend  that  it  is  desirable  to  have  an 
organized  division  in  every  considerable  diocese, 
each  sustained  by  an  established  pi'ess,  which  must 
again,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  tend  to  perpet- 
uate and  consolidate  its  own  party  ?  Surely  not. 
But  it  cannot  be  otherwise,  if  the  judgment  of  a 
single  Bishop  is  the  only  judgment  which  practically 
decides  the  most  serious  and  important  questions. 
For  if  appeals  were  allowed  in  those  primitive  times, 
when  there  was  an  liundred-fold  more  respect  felt  for 
the  office  of  a  Bishop  than  we  shall  ever  see  again, 
how  much  more,  beloved  brethren,  must  they  be 
required,  in  the  unchecked  freedom  of  the  nineteenth 
century  ! 

It  may  be  thought,  indeed,  by  some,  that  our 
General  Convention  affords  an  adequate  remedy  for 
every  episcopal  mistake,  and  by  others,  that  the  late 
Canon  for  the  trial  of  Bishops  secures  ample  protec- 
tion. Both  of  these  opinions,  however,  in  my  humble 
judgment,  are  untenable,  for  the  following  reasons: 

The  first  idea,  which  would  bring  the  mistakes  of 
episcopal  decisions  to  the  General  Convention,  is 
opposed  to  all  experience  and  analogy.  That  as- 
sembly is  the  supreme  legislature  of  the  Church, 
whose  business  is  not  so  much  with  men,  as  with 
principles.    No  such  body  can  advantageously  unite 


45 

the  judicial  with  the  legislative  function.  The  very 
form  of  their  proceeding,  in  having  two  separate 
Houses,  like  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  or,  more 
properly,  like  the  English  Convocation,  utterly  for- 
bids the  attempt  to  hear  appeals,  or  sit  in  judgment. 
It  might,  indeed,  be  otherwise,  if,  like  the  ancient 
Provincial  Synods,  they  consisted  only  of  bishops,  or 
if,  like  the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly,  they  sat 
together.  But  constituted  as  they  are,  (and,  as  I 
believe,  most  wisely,)  nothing  like  an  appellate  juris- 
diction can  be  exercised  by  them.  They  may  correct 
abuses  to  a  certain  extent,  by  Canons  and  resolu- 
tions ;  but  the  full  remedial  power  of  an  appellate 
Court  demands  a  distinct  examination.  There  are 
other  reasons  which  would  lead  to  the  same  result, 
but  this  appears  to  be  conclusive. 

As  to  the  other  idea,  that  our  late  Canon  on  the 
trial  of  Bishops  might  be  applied  to  the  correction  of 
errors  in  judgment,  I  apprehend  that  it  is  equally 
inadmissible.  For  although  this  Canon  does  indeed 
say,  that  a  Bishop  may  be  presented,  not  only  for  any 
crime  or  immorality,  or  for  heresy,  but  also  for  vio- 
lating the  constitution  or  Canons  of  the  Church,  or  of 
his  own  diocese,  so  that  the  whole  range  of  possible 
offences  seems  to  be  included,  yet  I  think  it  obvious 
that  in  sound  legal  construction,  it  can  only  apply  to 
offences.  That  is  to  say,  a  criminal  intent  must  be 
attached  to  the  act  on  which  the  presentment  is 
founded,  and  therefore  mere  errors  in  judgment,  to 
which  the  best  and  most  conscientious  men  are  liable, 
can  by  no  means  be  a  proper  ground  for  a  present- 


46 

ment  under  that  Canon.  The  answer  of  the  respon- 
dent to  every  such  presentment  would  be,  substan- 
tially, either  Guilty,  or  Not  guilty.  But  there  is  no 
guilt  when  the  intention  is  right;  and  therefore  many 
serious  mistakes  may  be  committed,  and  much  oppo- 
sition may  exist  between  the  declared  opinions  of  the 
bishops,  and  the  official  action  founded  thereupon, 
which  the  true  spirit  of  that  Canon  could  never  reach 
at  all.  The  distinction  may  be  readily  understood 
by  a  recurrence  to  the  familiar  analogy  of  our  civil 
judges.  For  they  may  all  be  subject  to  impeach- 
ment for  official  misconduct ;  wliile  an  illegal  opinion, 
delivered  without  wilful  corruption,  and  in  the  exe- 
cution of  their  office,  must  be  corrected  either  by 
TV7'it  of  Error,  or  Appeal,  and  no  rebuke  nor  cen- 
sure, mvich  less  the  loss  of  office,  can  possibly  follow 
from  those  honest  mistakes  of  judgment,  to  which 
the  very  exercise  of  their  functions,  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  must  always  expose  them.  In  like  manner, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  should  the  Church  be  provided 
with  some  mode  for  the  correction  of  those  errors, 
which  are  no  proper  ground  for  impeachment  or 
presentment,  since  the  Canon,  which  was  designed 
for  this  latter  purpose,  cannot,  with  any  legal  con- 
sistency, be  applied  to  the  other. 

Independently  of  these  arguments,  however,  I 
frankly  confess  that  there  is  another  view  of  this 
subject  which  has  long  had  great  influence  on  my 
own  mind.  We  are  obliged  to  listen  to  a  vast  amount 
of  accusation  without,  and  of  apprehension  within 
our  own  pale,  concerning  the  dangerous  and  despotic 
character  of  episcopal  power,  and  the  terrible  abuses 


47 

to  which  it  is  applicable.  Now  so  long  as  we  have 
no  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  a  single  Bishop,  it  is 
evident  that  there  will  be  room  left  for  the  reiteration 
of  those  complaints  and  lamentations.  No  change 
that  v/e  can  make,  indeed,  will  be  likely  to  satisfy 
those  who  are  determined  to  censure  episcopacy, 
right  or  wrong.  But  for  the  sake  of  some  amongst 
our  own  brethren,  it  is  surely  worth  our  wliile  to  do 
any  thing  lawful  in  itself,  by  which  we  may  quiet 
those  fears  of  episcopal  tyranny  which  seem  to  dis- 
turb them.  So  far  as  I  know  our  Bishops,  they 
desire  the  exercise  of  as  little  official  power,  as  may 
consist  with  the  faithful  administration  of  the  system 
committed  to  their  especial  oversight  and  care.  And 
I  cannot  see  any  reason  to  doubt,  that  they  would 
have  cause  to  rejoice  in  a  measure,  which  would 
strengthen  their  hands  by  the  influence  of  unity  in 
all  that  the  interests  of  discipline  and  order  could  re- 
quire, while  it  would  take  away  all  pretext  for  com- 
plaint, and  all  excuse  for  opposition. 

There  is  yet  one  service  more,  and  that  of  no  small 
importance,  which  I  should  desire  might  be  perform- 
ed by  the  Board  or  Council  of  Appeals,  which  I  have 
been  advocating.  It  is  the  censorship  of  the  press 
within  the  circle  of  the  Church.  I  need  hardly  say 
to  you,  my  beloved  and  respected  brethren,  that  this 
censorship  formed  a  serious  part  of  the  duty  dis- 
charged by  the  English  Convocation,  and  that  no 
branch  of  the  Church  can  expect  to  be  long  at  rest, 
in  which  there  is  not  some  mode  by  which  it  may  be 
faithfully  exercised.  No  reflecting  mind  can  doubt, 
for  instance,  that  if  the  Convocation  had  been  in  pos- 


• 


48 


session  of  its  former  powers,  the  mischievous  excite- 
ment produced  by  the  objectionable  portions  of  the 
Oxford  Tracts,  and  especially  of  the  British  Critic, 
would  have  been  etfectually  arrested  in  due  season. 
Nor  do  I  see  how  any  sober  Christian,  who  loves  to 
follow  the  things  which  make  for  peace,  and  who  has 
been  an  attentive  observer  of  our  episcopal  press  for 
some  years  past,  can  help  desiring,  that  if  possible  a 
wholesome  curb  might  be  put  upon  that  powerful 
engine,  by  which  its  vast  strength  could  still  be  used 
for  good,  while  it  should  be  restrained  from  evil. 

I  should  feel  self-condemned,  if,  having  touched 
upon  this  subject,  I  did  not  discharge  my  own  con- 
science, by  openly  protesting  against  the  sad  abuse 
of  anonymous  publications,  written  by  nobody 
knows  whom,  and  often  replete  with  a  temper  and 
a  language,  which,  it  must  be  confessed,  few  men 
who  have  any  character  to  lose  would  be  willing  to 
appropriate.  This  pernicious  custom,  however,  seems 
to  me  particularly  blameworthy,  when  it  is  adopted 
in  our  Church  Periodicals.  For  at  least  it  must  be 
granted,  that  the  author  of  a  scurrilous  pamphlet 
stands  alone,  and  pays  for  the  privilege  of  printing 
it.  But  the  writer  of  as  scurrilous  a  communication 
in  the  columns  of  a  religious  paper,  is  put  to  no  cost; 
and  is  brought,  without  their  leave,  into  respectable 
company.  By  this  convenient  vehicle,  he  is  intro- 
duced to  a  thousand  eyes  to  which  he  would  not 
otherwise  have  gaiiied  access,  and  is  aided  in  liis  ma- 
levolence or  folly  by  nn  implied  approbation,  while 
all  real  accountability  is  turned  ofi"  upon  the  editorial 
prerogative  of  not  being  responsible  for  the  senti- 
ments of  correspondents. 


• 


49 


The  activity  of  this  ingenious  management  has 
procured  us  a  succession  of  invisible  and  intangible 
monitors,  who  reprove,  rebuke,  and  exhort,  with  all 
authority,  at  one  moment;  and  jest,  and  flout,  and 
sneer,  with  all  irreverence,  at  another.  Who  the 
persons  may  be  that  thus  undertake  to  illuminate 
the  Cluirch,  or  flagellate  her  unhappy  oflicers,  is  all 
a  mystery.  It  is  a  literary  masquerade.  A  young 
gentleman,  perhaps,  whose  theological  studies  have 
but  just  begun,  assumes,  with  all  proper  gravity,  the 
cognomen  of  one  of  the  martyrs ;  and  Bidley,  or 
Latimer^  or  Hooper,  or  Cranmer,  appears  in  such  a 
guise,  that  assuredly  their  best  friends  would  never 
know  them.  It  may  be  that  some  young  lady,  warm- 
ed with  a  generous  emulation,  next  pens  a  letter  to 
the  editor ;  and  after  discussing  her  ecclesiastical  difii- 
culties  with  a  reasonable  measure  of  profundity,  sub- 
scribes herself,  the  judicious  Hooker.  All  this,  how- 
ever, is  but  conjecture,  for  whether  the  contributors 
be  young  or  old,  male  or  female,  gentle  or  simple, 
mere  phantoms  or  substantial  realities,  is  quite  a 
secret  to  Ihe  reader.  It  is  true,  nevertheless,  that  the 
plan  presents  a  goodly  variety,  a  sort  of  Protestant 
Carnival  in  type.  One  nobody  patronizes  the  demo- 
cratic principle,  and  calls  himself.  Vox  popuH.  An- 
other nobody  i)refers  the  honor  of  the  magistrate, 
and  signs  himsi^lf,  Fi<it  justitia.  A  third  nobody 
contents  himself  with  being  an  Observer,  meaning, 
of  course,  to  be  considered  an  exceedingly  shrewd 
one.  A  fourth  nobody  has  better  ideas  of  imperson- 
ality, and  only  aspuMiig  to  represent  a  maxim,  calls 
himself,  Suum  cuique.     A  fifth  nobody  has  a  strong 

5 


50 

bias  towards  State  rights,  and  takes  the  style  of  Ve.r^ 
mont,  Maryland,  or  Ohio.  A  sixth  nobody  shrinks 
from  such  arrogant  presumption,  modestly  contracts 
himself  within  the  bounds  of  a  single  city,  and  so 
dubs  himself,  New  York.  While  a  seventh  disdains 
such  adventitious  dignity,  and  puts  upon  his  mask  a 
solitary  letter,  as  if  he  felt  himself  quite  above  the 
vulgarity  of  having  any  name  at  all.  Meanwhile 
our  host  of  nobodies  display  a  great  deal  of  spirit, 
and  not  a  little  temper  at  times.  Gross  personality; 
keen  asperity,  heartless  ridicule,  fulsome  adulation, 
and  downright  insult,  may  be  found  among  their 
contributions ;  mingled,  indeed,  with  much  better 
things,  sound  argument,  solid  learning,  and  polished 
style,  which  deserve  to  be  found  in  very  diflferent 
society.  But  who  and  what  are  they  ?  For  the  most 
part,  nobody  knows.  Sometimes  there  may  be  a  pri^ 
vate  signal  for  the  benefit  of  friends,  or  a  peculiarity 
which  favors  detection,  or  a  long  appropriation  of  the 
same  vizor,  which  at  last  becomes  recognized  as  if  it 
were  the  man's  own  countenance.  It  is  very  seldom, 
however,  that  the  more  objectionable  njaskers  are 
known  at  all,  by  the  bulk  of  those  who  peruse  the 
paper.  Practically  speaking,  we  only  see  them  in 
print,  under  a  name  assumed  to  balk  our  curiosity. 
Who,  then,  is  responsible?  Nobody.  If  injury  be 
inflicted,  who  shall  repair  the  wrong?  Nobody.  If 
reparation  be  denied,  on  whom  shall  the  discipline  of 
the  Church  descend  ?  Of  course,  on  nobody.  But  are 
they  not  the  Ediior^s  correspondents  ?  Doubtless  ; 
but  they  are  nobody,  not  withstanding.  Then  must 
not  the  editor  himself  be  responsible?     Yes,  truly, 


51 

in  law ;  but  it  may  be  a  difficult  point  to  ascer- 
tain whether  he  holds  himself  accountable  in  con- 
science :  and  in  Church  practice  he  is  so  far  from 
being  responsible  for  the  sayings  of  his  correspond- 
ents, that  he  is  not  always  expected  to  justify  his 
own. 

Now  all  this  is  surely  preposterous,  and  ought  not 
to  be  tolerated  by  any  community  which  calls  itself 
the  Church  of  God.  The  truth  is,  that  the  model 
and  the  license  of  our  religious  periodicals  have  been 
too  much  taken  from  the  world,  and  their  editors 
seem  often  to  have  imagined,  that  there  was  some 
tribunal  for  an  avocation  like  theirs,  from  which  the 
law  of  Christian  responsibility  must  be  excluded. 
Honorable  exceptions  there  are,  doubtless,  to  this  re- 
mark, but,  as  a  whole,  we  have  still  to  look  forward 
to  the  time  when  our  editors  shall  remember  that 
their  works  do  follow  them,  and  that  they  are  re- 
sponsible, Avhether  they  declare  it  or  not,  for  every 
thing  pubhshed  through  their  instrumentality.  This 
is  a  lesson,  therefore,  which  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
Church  to  teach  them.  Especially  does  it  seem  to 
me,  that  they  should  suffer  no  man  to  assume  the  task 
of  advice  or  reprehension  in  the  Church  of  Christ, 
who  is  ashamed  or  afraid  to  do  it  in  his  own  name. 
We  have  a  right  to  know  our  teachers,  and  to  have 
a  fair  opportunity  of  judging  how  far  they  seem  en- 
titled to  discharge  so  grave  an  office.  Young  persons 
may  doubtless  be  encouraged  to  try  their  skill  on 
moral  or  religious  essays,  poetry,  &c.,  with  all  pro- 
priety, and  on  the  score  of  modesty  they  may  be  in- 
dulged with  a  private  signature.     But  to  place  them 


52 

in  the  seat  of  the  scorner  under  such  a  disguise, — to 
encourage  them  in  the  scattering  of  fire-brands,  and 
counting  it  sport, — to  sustain  them  in  libelUng  the 
characters  of  men  who  were  laboring  for  the  Church 
before  they  were  born, — and  to  prostitute  the  sacred 
influence  of  a  rehgious  paper  in  order  to  gain  atten- 
tion for  what  the  writers  dared  not  to  have  printed 
in  their  own  person — these  are  abuses  for  which  I 
can  imagine  no  apology ;  and  if  there  were  no  other, 
these  alone  call  loudly  for  some  power  to  regulate  the 
press.  I  speak  not,  of  course,  with  respect  to  the 
world.  The  secular  press  must  manage  its  own  con- 
cerns in  its  own  way,  subject  to  the  law  of  the  land, 
and  to  the  tribunal  of  public  opinion.  But  I  speak 
of  the  press  which  is  professedly  connected  with  the 
Church,  in  the  hands  of  her  clergy,  the  organ  of  her 
bishops,  commended  publicly  to  her  Conventions,  and 
therefore,  in  theory,  subject  to  her  control.  Still  far- 
ther is  it  from  my  intention,  directly  or  indirectly,  to 
deprecate  the  voice  of  honest  censure  or  reproof, 
either  as  it  may  respect  myself,  or  any  of  my  brethren 
in  the  episcopate.  On  the  contrary,  I  would  desire 
at  all  times  to  say,  in  the  words  of  the  Psalmist,  Let 
the  righteous  smite  me  friendly,  and  rebuke  me. 
But  let  me  see  that  my  reprover  is  acting  as  becomes 
a  Christian  and  a  man,  in  obedience  to  his  duty,  and 
in  the  light  of  day.  And  let  not  the  Church  of  the 
Most  High  God  tolerate  the  principle  of  the  assassin, 
who  only  inflicts  the  wound  when  he  has  his  face 
disguised,  and  hopes  that  darkness  will  shroud  him 
from  observation. 

Before  I  close  my  remarks  on  the  improvement 


53 

proposfifl,  however,  it  is  incumbent  upon  me  to  no- 
tice the  objection,  that  the  adoption  of  but  one  code 
of  canon  law,  and  the  consequent  abolition  of  dio- 
cesan legislation,  would  interfere  with  the  rights  of. 
the  dioceses  themselves,  and  counteract  a  plain  pro- 
vision of  our  existing  Constitution. 

I  freely  admit  that  this  argument  deserves  a  serious 
consideration,  and  at  once  concede,:that  as  our  Con- 
stitution  now  stands,  the  improvement  suggested 
would  be  impracticable.  But  that  instrument  can 
be  readily  modified  or  changed  at  the  will  of  the 
Church.  No  one  regards  it  with  any  other  feeling 
than  that  of  profound  respect ;  but  yet  no  one  is  so 
ignorant  as  to  claim  for  it  the  reverence  due  to  an- 
tiquity, much  less  the  unchangeable  authority  which 
alone  belongs  to  inspiration. 

The  first  part  of  the  objection,  therefore,  is  the  only 
one  which  demands  attention,  namely,  that  the  plan 
proposed  would  interfere  with  the  rights  of  the  dio- 
ceses. Now  the  rights  of  the  dioceses,  under  the 
Constitution,  I  grant ;  but  the  rights  of  the  dioceses, 
as  such,  to  make  Constitutions  or  canous,  properly  so 
called,  I  beg  leave  to  deny  utterly.  A  brief  reference 
to  facts,  as  they  stand  upon  the  face  of  the  Church's 
history,  will  explain  this  position  clearly. 

A  Constitution,  or  a  canon,  is  a  decree,  law,  or  rule, 
binding  upon  the  Church,  in  the  highest  sense  of 
merely  ecclesiastical  obligation.  And  the  first  ex- 
ample of  such  decree  or  canon  is  in  the  remarkable 
instance  of  the  Assembly  or  Council  held  by  the 
Apostles  at  Jerusalem,  in  order  to  settle  the  contro~ 
rersy  which  had  arisen  upon  the  question ;  Whether 

5* 


54 

the  Gentile  Churches  were  under  the  ceremonial 
law  of  the  Mosaic  economy.  Here  the  decree  was 
framed  by  the  authority,  not  of  one  Apostler,  but  of 
all ;  and  from  this  has  been  properly  derived  the 
great  model  of  all  subsequent  legislation  in  the 
Church  of  God. 

The  next  example  bearing  upon  the  subject,  occurs 
in  the  venerable  code  familiarly  known  by  the  name 
of  the  Jipostolic  Canons,  purporting  to  have  been 
made  by  the  collective  authority  of  the  blessed  Apos- 
tles. I  need  hardly  say  that  such  a  claim  as  this  is 
quite  apocryphal.  But  nevertheless,  their  great  anti- 
quity is  unquestionable;  and  the  respect  with  which 
they  are  referred  to  by  the  Councils  of  the  primitive 
Church,  is  well  known  to  every  theologian.  I  men- 
tion them,  however,  as  furnishing  the  second  proof 
of  the  principle  already  stated,  namely,  that  a  decree 
or  law,  intended  to  bind  the  Church  with  any  per- 
manent obligation,  was  regarded  as  the  work  of  all 
the  apostles,  and  not  of  one  alone. 

There  is  yet  a  third  exan^.ple  of  the  same  thing,  in 
the  very  interesting  collection  called  the  Jlpostolical 
Constitutions.  That  this  title  is  also  apocryphal,  or 
rather,  I  should  say, confessedly  supposititious, detracts 
nothing  from  the  evidence  which  they  afford  of  the 
principle :  since,  like  the  Apostolic  Canons,  they 
profess  to  be  the  decrees  of  the  whole  Apostolic 
College,  met  together  in  solemn  Council. 

It  may  be  as  well,  perhaps,  to  notice  here  a  diffi- 
culty, which  may  probably  trouble  some  amongst  my 
readers.  How,  it  might  be  asked,  should  the  autho- 
rity of  all  the  Apostles  be  supposed  necessary  for  the 


55 

production  of  these  Canons,  when  St.  Paul,  single 
and  alone,  claims  absolute  obedience  from  the 
Churches,  and  plainly  saith  :  "  If  any  rtian  among 
you  seem  to  he  a  prophet  or  spiritual,  let  him 
acknowledge  what  I  say  to  be  the  commandment  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.^^  The  answer  is:  Because 
the  Apostles  sometimes  spake  by  inspiration,  and 
then  their  authority  was  indeed  equivalent  to  the  very 
word  of  the  great  Redeemer,  since,  according  to  their 
Lord's  own  promise,  it  was  not  they  who  spake,  but 
the  Holy  Ghost  who  spake  in  them.  But  St.  Paul 
himself  records  some  counsels  which  he  declares 
were  not  by  inspiration ;  as,  for  example,  where  he 
saith  :  "  Now  concerning  virgins,  I  have  received  no 
commandment  of  the  Lord,  yet  I  give  my  judg- 
m,ent,  as  one  that  hath  obtained  mercy  of  the  Lord 
to  be  faithful,^^  (1  Cor.  vii.  25.)  It  is  perfectly  plain, 
too,  on  the  face  of  the  sacred  history,  that  there  was 
no  inspiration  granted  to  decide  the  question  whether 
the  Gentiles  were  free  from  the  cerenjonial  law  ;  nor 
did  St.  Peter  speak,  nor  did  St.  James  deliver  his 
judgment,  in  the  authoritative  style  which  became  a 
divine  communication.  But  after  the  sentence  pro- 
nounced by  St.  James  was  found  to  be  unanimously 
acceptable,  and  the  Apostles  were  persuaded,  by  a 
secret  consciousness,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  had  ap- 
proved it,  they  then  say  in  the  decree,  "  //  seemed 
good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us.''  From  this  we 
may  readily  understand,  that  the  primitive  Church  did 
not  esteem  the  apostolic  Canons  as  actually  inspired, 
else  they  would,  doubtless,  have  reckoned  them 
among  the  Holy  Scriptures.     But  they  understood 


^        56 

them  to  be  the  joint  result  of  the  Apostles'  consulta- 
tion, without  any  other  divine  aid  than  the  ordinary 
succours  of  heavenly  grace  promised  to  the  apostolic 
ministry.  Consequently,  although  they  doubted  not 
that  they  "seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost,"  yet 
they  distinguished  between  that  which  was  spoken 
"  hy  permissions^  and  that  which  was  spoken  "  hy 
commandment  The  first  was  apostolic,  the  second 
only  was  divine. 

But  to  return  from  this  digression:  I  have  next  to 
observe,  that  the  model  of  those  apostolic  consulta- 
tions was  followed  scrupulously  by  the  Christian 
Church  in  every  quarter,  and,  so  far  as  I  can  find, 
without  a  single  exception.  What  the  blessed  Apos- 
tles were  known  to  have  done  in  the  Council  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  what  they  were  generally  believed  to  have 
done  in  the  enactment  of  the  apostolic  Canons,  was 
done  by  the  bishops  who  succeeded  them.  No  single 
bishop,  therefore,  with  only  the  clergy  and  laity  be- 
longing to  his  own  jurisdiction  arouiid  him,  ever 
thought  of  establishing  Constitutions  or  Canons  for 
his  particular  diocese;  but  a  whole  band  of  bishops, 
more  or  less  numerous,  met  together,  as  the  Apostles 
had  done  before  them,  and  Canons  were  the  joint 
product  of  their  united  wisdom,  not  intended  to  guide 
a  single  district,  only,  but  designed  to  express  what 
they  believed  to  be  equally  suitable  and  acceptable 
for  the  whole  body  of  the  faithful.  Nor  do  I  know 
of  anv  deviation  from  the  rule,  until  the  enterprizing 
spirit  of  our  own  Church,  smitten  with  the  love  of 
legislation  which  characterized  the  country  and  the 
time,  made  the  privilege  of  enacting  ecclesiastical 


57 

Canons  commensurate  with  the  limits  of  every  dio- 
cese, past,  present,  and  to  come ;  so  that  we  not  only 
give  to  a  real  diocese,  (that  is,  a  district,  having  a 
bishop  of  its  own,)  the  full  right  of  making  its  own 
laws,  but  we  even  allow  every  State  to  be  called  a 
diocese  prospectively ;  and  where,  as  yet,  there  is  no 
bishop,  nor  the  slightest  probability  that  there  will  be 
any  for  years  to  come,  we  nevertheless  accept  the 
doings  of  one  or  two  clergymen  and  three  or  four 
laymen,  as  an  equivalent.  We  call  a  fire-side  com- 
pany like  this,  a  Convention  :  we  receive  from  their 
assembled  wisdom  a  Constitution  and  Canons,  and 
thus,  we  have  brought  the  solemn  work  of  pronounc- 
ing laws  for  the  future  Church  of  God  to  such  a 
point  of  facility,  that  it  may  be  fairly  compared  to 
any  other  mechanism  of  our  prolific  days. 

I  should  be  exceedingly  grieved,  my  beloved  bre- 
thren, if  these  remarks  were  understood  to  indicate 
the  slightest  want  of  respect  and  affection  for  the 
'  work  of  those  excellent  and  admirable  men,  who 
were  called,  by  divine  Providence,  to  act  as  pioneers 
in  the  arduous  task  of  Church  legislation.  They 
doubtless  did  all  that  was  at  that  tifiie  possible.  They 
surmounted  obstacles  which  we  can  scarcely  even 
imagine.  And  far  be  it  from  any  of  those  who  have 
entered  into  their  labors,  to  pluck  one  leaf  from  the 
wreath  of  pre-eminent  honor,  with  which  the  grate- 
ful veneration  of  millions,  in  England  and  America, 
has  long  since  crowned  their  brows.  But  the  ad- 
vancement of  a  mighty  work,  which  could  not,  in 
the  very  nature  of  the  case,  be  otherwise  than  imper- 
fect in  its  beginning,  should  never  be  regarded  with 


58 

jealousy  on  account  of  those  revered  men ;  for  in 
truth,  the  argument,  rightly  applied,  would  tend  the 
other  way. 

Imagine,  for  illustration's  sake,  the  children  of  a 
first  settler,  shedding  their  tears  of  filial  devotion  at 
the  grave  of  their  departed  father.  They  dwell 
with  affectionate  remembrance  upon  his  hardships 
in  the  wilderness :  the  Indian  tomahawk,  the  pan- 
ther's ferocity,  the  serpent's  venom, — all  was  encoun- 
tered, and  all  was  overcome.  In  due  time,  peace 
and  security  rewarded  his  fortitude  and  courage, 
fruitful  harvests  bore  witness  to  his  labours  and  his 
toils,  hundreds  and  thousands  came  thronging  around 
him,  a  goodly  city  rose  up  on  the  field  which  his 
hands  first  planted,  till  at  length,  after  reaching  to 
the  borders  of  a  century,  with  praises  and  honors 
heaped  on  his  reverend  head,  he  went  to  his  eternal 
rest,  leaving  his  hard-earned  but  noble  estate  to  his 
grateful  children.  Now  what  would  be  the  value  of 
their  love  for  their  departed  sire,  if  they  used  it  as  an 
apology  for  refusing  to  goon  in  the  improvement  of  the 
property  ?  Should  they  be  so  weak  as  to  say,  "  Our 
father  built  the  house,  and  therefore  we  will  neither 
add  nor  alter.  The  foundation  which  he  laid  of  tim- 
ber, we  will  not  rebuild  with  stone.  Some  of  the 
tenements  were  hastily  constructed,  under  the  pres- 
sure of  surrounding  difficulties,  and  the  beams  are 
threatening  to  give  way ;  but  our  filial  piety  will 
suffer  them  to  fall  upon  our  heads,  sooner  than 
replace  them  by  a  firmer  structure."  Surely  such 
folly  as  this  could  never  be  mistaken  for  the  true 
principle  of  manly  and  rational  aftection.     Instead 


59 

of  this,  we  should  charge  the  sons  of  such  a  father^ 
to  prove  their  admiration  of  his  virtues  by  emulating 
his  energy  and  perseverance  ;  to  carry  forward  the 
work  which  he  had  begun  in  the  midst  of  so  many 
obstacles,  and  to  leave  no  labor  undone,  which  might 
make  the  perfection  of  the  end,  worthy  of  the  wisdom 
and  the  courage  displayed  in  the  beginning. 

Precisely  under  such  an  aspect,  do  I  desire  to 
regard  every  effort  to  supply  the  existing  deficiencies 
in  our  ecclesiastical  system,  as  a  tribute  of  the  highest 
practical  reverence  to  the  American  patriarchs  who 
have  gone  to  their  rest.  They  were  the  great  pio- 
neers in  a  mighty  undertaking.  Theirs  were  the 
struggles,  the  dangers,  the  conflicts,  tlie  fears,  which 
we  only  know  in  history.  Instead  of  wondering 
that  they  left  anything  for  us  to  do,  our  only  wonder 
ought  to  be  that  they  effected  so  much,  and  eifected 
it,  by  the  good  hand  of  God  upon  them,  so  wisely 
and  so  well.  And  therefore,  far  from  recurring  to 
their  venerated  names  as  an  argument  for  doing 
nothing,  I  would  cite  them  as  a  high  example,  to 
encourage  our  ardour,  and  to  stimulate  our  zeal. 

It  may  be  objected,  however,  that  the  proposed 
abolition  of  all  diocesan  legislation,  and  placing  all 
the  dioceses  under  the  same  code,  framed  by  ttie 
same  comprehensive  authority  of  the  General  Con- 
vention which  already  iias  the  sole  power  over  the 
system  of  the  Church  in  doctrine  and  worship,  would 
destroy  the  interest  of  our  clersy  and  laity  in  our 
diocesan  Conventions,  and  thus  work  a  serious  evil. 

Such  a  result,  if  it  were  likely  to  happen,  would 
indeed  be  an  evil  of  no  small  magnitude.     But  I  am 


60 

quite  convinced  that  the  very  contrary  would  be  the 
practical  effect  of  the  alteration  which  I  take  the 
liberty  of  recommending.  For  all  experience  proves, 
that  the  work  of  legislation  can  hardly  ever  be  con- 
ducted with  perfect  unanimity ;  and  therefore  it  is 
apt,  in  small  bodies,  such  as  our  diocesan  Convene 
tion,  to  be  attended  with  strife,  heart-bnrnings,  and 
lasting  dissatisfaction,  where  all  ought  to  be  unity 
and  peace.  The  portion  of  the  diocese  who  acqui- 
esce relnctantly,  are  tempted  to  form  a  party.  Dis- 
content is  propagated  by  uneasy  spirits,  of  whom 
there  are  always  found  more  or  less,  and  who,  though 
doubtless  with  very  good  intentions,  exaggerate  alike 
the  supposed  existing  evil,  and  the  importance  of  the 
contemplated  change;  and  thus  a  feeling  of  opposi- 
tion and  division  is  kept  up,  which  of  all  tilings 
proves  most  thoroughly  hostile  to  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  and  often  grieves  the  Holy  Spirit,  if  it 
does  not  deprive  the  whole  diocese  of  the  blessing  of 
God.  The  inevitable  disadvantages  of  the  existing 
system  have  been  exemplified  by  almost  every  dio- 
cese in  the  Union.  Their  Constitutions  and  Canons, 
so  called,  are  subjected  to  revisions  as  often  as  de- 
cency can  allow.  Matters  of  the  smallest  possible 
importance  become  the  subject  of  serious  and  lasting 
^  difficulty,  and  a  wovnid  is  inflicted  upon  tlie  feelings 
of  unity  and  brotherly  affection,  whicii  may  possibly 
be  never  healed  again. 

Another,  and  perhaps  a  much  greater  evil,  how- 
ever, is  connected  with  this  diocesan  legislation; 
namely,  the  general  indifference  or  contempt  towards 
the  Canons  of  the  diocese,  which  every  experienced 


61 

observer  must  have  noticed.  Nor  is  this  a  subject  of 
surprise  to  a  reflecting  mind.  For  how,  I  beseech 
you,  brethren,  can  there  be  any  solemnity  of  obHga- 
tion  felt  towards  a  set  of  laws,  passed  by  one  bishop, 
and  perhaps  a  dozen  clergymen,  with  tlieir  attendant 
parochial  laymen,  and  with  more  or  less  opposition, 
when  every  one  knows  that  they  rest  on  no  higher 
authority  than  their  own  will,  and  can  be  altered  as 
soon  as  the  minority,  by  a  few  changes  in  the  minis- 
try of  the  diocese,  can  become  the  majority  ?  What 
Churchman  can  be  expected  to  obey,  in  religious 
matters,  what  he  cannot  reverence  ?  And  what 
reverence  is  he  likely  to  cherish  for  any  thing  so 
mutable,  so  slight,  so  easily  set  up,  and  so  easily  cast 
down,  as  this  diocesan  legislation  ? 

But  all  this  vexatious,  uncertain,  and  troublesome 
set  of  subjects,  only  interrupts  and  deranges  the  pro- 
per objects  for  which  the  Convention  of  the  diocese 
meet  annually  together.  The  hearing  the  statement 
of  their  bishop's  labors,  and  the  parochial  reports, 
the  raising  and  paying  in  the  various  contributions 
for  missionary  and  other  purposes,  the  settling  of  any 
doubts  or  difficulties  which  might  be  proposed  touch- 
ing the  meaning  of  the  ecclesiastical  system,  the 
listening  to  the  wants  of  the  weaker  Churches,  and 
consulting  how  to  supply  them,  the  mutual  encou- 
ragement derived  from  mutual  intercourse,  and  the 
multiplying  and  strengthening  those  bands  of  Christ- 
ian love,  which  ought  to  bind  the  members  of  every 
diocese  together,  as,  indeed,  one  family  in  Christ, — 
these  are  the  true  and  important  objects  of  these 
annual  meetings.     And  so  far  would  they  be  from 

6 


62 

suffering,  if  the  provocations  and  temptations  which 
arise  out  of  this  vice  of  legislation  were  removed, 
that,  in  my  humble  judgment,  they  would  flourish  and 
prosper  incomparably  more  than  ever.  As  the  mat- 
ter now  stands,  these  legislative  topics,  in  their  rela* 
tion  to  our  Diocesan  Conventions,  are  like  the  suckers 
of  a  valuable  tree,  which  drain  the  trunk  of  its  pro- 
per vigor.  And  hence,  one  of  the  most  certain  means, 
under  God,  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  fruit,  would 
be  to  prune  them  utterly  away. 

All  these  objections,  however,  to  diocesan  legisla- 
tion, vanish,  when  we  consider  the  action  of  the 
General  Convention.  For  the  strifes  and  difficulties 
which  sometimes  attend  the  task  of  legislation,  are 
never  dangerous  in  a  body  gathered  from  every  dio- 
cese in  the  Union,  at  longer  periods,  the  members  of 
which  scarcely  know  each  other,  who  may  never 
have  met  together  before,  and  most  probably  will 
never  meet  together  again.  There  is  here,  therefore, 
more  solemnity,  more  dignity,  more  courtesy,  more 
self-restraint,  more  thoughtful  deliberation.  Even 
if  dissension  should  arise,  there  is  no  opportunity  for 
renewing  or  extending  it,  and  therefore  it  soon  dies 
away.  In  all  respects,  indeed,  it  is  an  assembly  of 
an  incomparably  higher  character.  Then  there  is 
the  whole  College  of  our  bishops,  met  together  with 
every  advantage,  which  the  knowledge,  wisdom,  ex* 
perience  and  piety  of  each,  can  bring  to  the  common 
work  of  deliberation.  Then  tliere  is  more  than  ten 
times  the  period,  during  which  their  labors  continue; 
and  can  we  reasonably  doubt  that  there  is  an  increase, 
proportionate  to  all  this,  in  the  essential  work  of  faith" 


€3 

ful  prayer,  and  earnest  supplication  to  that  blessed 
Spirit,  who  alone  maketh  men  to  be  of  one  mind  in 
a  house? — a  proportionate  realizing  of  the  insignifi- 
cance of  each  individual  man, — a  proportionate  feel- 
ing of  entire  dependence  on  the  wisdom  which 
cometh  from  above  ?  Then  theje  is  the  necessity  of 
an  united  judgment  in  favor  of  each  canon  enacted, 
securing  the  benefits  of  a  revision  by  either  House,  of 
the  acts  proposed  by  the  other.  So  that  you  have 
the  principle  of  the  primitive  councils  in  the  House 
of  bishops,  along  with  the  safeguard  of  the  clergy's 
assent,  as  in  the  British  Convocation  system;  and 
superadded  to  both,  a  principle,  to  which  every  year's 
observation  and  experience  has  more  and  more  at- 
tached me,  namely,  the  distinct  approbation  of  our 
laity.  Everything,  therefore,is  here  combined,  which 
exhibits  the  ideal  of  the  Church's  admirable  unity. 
Some  of  our  brethren,  indeed,  have  been  induced  to 
apply  to  our  system  the  term,  veto,  which  seems,  to 
my  mind,  exceedingly  ill-judged,  and  totally  inappli- 
cable ;  since  neither  the  bishops,  nor  the  clergy,  nor 
the  laity,  can  be  truly  said  io  forbid  the  action  of  the 
rest.  But  the  correct  rationale  of  the  matter  is  sim- 
ply this :  that  the  Church  is  one  body,  and  for  that 
simple  reason,  it  must  move  together,  or  it  cannot 
move  at  all.  The  bishops  cannot  take  one  step  with- 
out the  clergy  and  laity,  nor  these,  again,  without  the 
bishops,  merely  because  they  are  "  every  one  mem- 
bers one  of  another:''''  for  just  as  the  human  body 
cannot  act  efficiently  without  the  harmonious  con- 
sent of  every  limb,  even  so  the  Church  cannot  act 
efficiently  without  the  concurrence  of  all  her  members. 


64 

In  canons  pronounced  by  the  General  Convention, 
therefore,  and  in  none  other,  shall  we  find  the  attri- 
butes properly  belonging  to  the  work  of  ecclesiastical 
legislation.  These  would  form  an  authoritative  rule 
to  each  diocese.  Every  bishop  could  be  sure  of  uni- 
versal concurrence  when  he  enforced  them,  and  men 
could  never  find  encouragement  in  an  attempt  to 
charge  their  diocesan  with  tyranny,  or  partiality,  or 
the  love  of  power,  so  long  as  he  was  only  doing  his 
manifest  duty  in  claiming  conformity  to  the  law  of 
the  whole  Church,  and  a  regular  appeal  was  allowed 
to  every  complaining  party. 

Having  thus,  my  respected  and  beloved  brethren, 
gone  over  the  principal  topics  proposed  in  my  first 
Letter,  it  only  remains  that  1  should  present  to  your 
indulgence  a  few  concluding  remarks,  upon  the  cha- 
racteristic features  of  the  Tractarian  system,  and  the 
g'eneral  aspect  which  it  wears  to  a  reflecting  mind. 

I  am  compelled,  with  deep  regret,  to  avow  my 
own  entire  conviction,  that  the  fundamental  error  of 
this  system  is  one  and  the  same  with  the  theory  of 
Romanism.  For  both  seem  perfectly  agreed  in  the 
idea,  that  the  Church  militant  on  earth  is  a  vast  Cor- 
poration, whose  members  have  no  individual  rights 
under  the  Charter,  except  as  parts  of  the  great  whole. 
From  this  they  derive  the  principle,  that  the  visible 
Church  is  the  reservoir  of  all  spiritual  influence ;  that 
grace  is  given  by  her,  and  onli/  through  her  in- 
strumentality. In  a  word,  they  invest  her  with  a 
SUBSTANTIVE  PERsoNALiTV,  dispensing  through  her 
officers,  by  the  very  appointment  of  Christ,  all  the 


65 

powers,  gifts,  rights,  and  privileges,  belonging  to  the 
kingdom  of  heaven. 

This  view  is  grand,  sublime,  and  imposing;  but  I 
believe  it  to  be  thoroughly  miscriptural  in  principle, 
false  in  fact,  and  dangerous  in  operation.  My  rea- 
sons are  briefly  as  follows. 

I  hold  this  notion  of  the  Church  to  be  unscriptural, 
first,  because  all  the  promises  of  Christ  are  made  to 
the  individual  believer,  conditioned  on  his  personal 
repentance  and  faith ;  secondly,  because  the  only 
clear  promises  made  to  the  Church,  as  the  Spouse  of 
Christ,  and  possessing  the  kingdom,  are  made  in  con- 
nection with  his  second  advent ;  and  thirdly,  because 
our  Lord,  speaking  of  the  present  dispensation,  espe- 
cially saith.  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world. 

I  hold  this  theory  to  be  false,  in  fact ;  because  the 
eighteen  centuries  of  the  Christian  era  have  not  yet 
witnessed  its  successful  application.  This  mighty 
unit  has  never  been  without  more  or  less  division  in 
its  outward  government,  and  the  papacy,  which  was 
indeed  a  wonderful  attempt  to  make  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  of  this  world,  has  only  proved  to  be  a  splendid 
failure. 

I  believe  the  notion  to  be  dangerous  in  operation, 
because  hs  inevitable  tendency  seems  to  be,  to  sink 
the  individual  responsibility  of  each  conscience  in  a 
blind  reliance  on  the  privileges  of  the  whole  ;  to 
cherish  an  excessive  and  superstitious  dependence  on 
the  Sacraments,  to  attach  an  extreme  and  absurd  faith 
to  the  supposed  teaching  of  tradition,  to  invest  the 
Church  with  the  authority  which  belongs  solely  to 
her  divine  Lord  and  Master,  to  rest  our  whole  justifi- 


66 

cation  upon  ordinances  rightly  administered,  rather 
than  on  the  Hving  principle  of  faith,  and  to  lead  each 
behever,  instead  of  using,  with  humble  confidence, 
the  rights  of  his  adoption,  by  coming  boldly  to  the 
throne  of  grace  in  every  time  of  need,  rather  to  lean 
upon  the  priesthood,  as  a  class  of  appointed  media' 
tors  between  Christ  and  the  soul. 

The  true  aspect  of  the  Church,  therefore,  as  I  ap- 
prehend it,  is  not  so  much  corporate  as  aggregate. 
Its  living  principle  is  faith,  by  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  in  the  soul  of  each  individual  man.  Its 
essential  unity  is  inward,  having  fellowship  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  through  the  Spirit  that  dwelleth 
in  the  temple  of  the  renewed  heart.  Its  outward  or 
formal  unity  follows  after  this,  as  a  privilege  and  a 
duty,  so  iixx  as  it  consists  with  truth  ;  but  its  life  de- 
pends not  on  that  unity.  Hence,  the  fathers  speak 
of  the  Church  as  essentially  existing  in  Abel,  Enoch, 
Noah,  and  Abraham.  Hence  all  who  are  united 
with  God  as  their  Father,  through  faith  in  Christ,  be- 
come necessarily  the  brethren  of  each  other,  and 
members  of  the  heavenly  household  ;  although  they 
may  not  have  the  power  to  congregate  together  upon 
earth.  Hence,  too,  there  is  a  sense  in  which  the  say- 
ing of  Cyprian  is  true,  that  "  he  caiuiot  have  God 
for  his  Father,  who  has  not  the  Church  for  his 
mother" ;  but  that  Church,  rightly  understood,  is 
"Jerusalem  above,"  which,  as  saith  the  inspired 
Apostle,  "is  the  mother  of  us  all." 

The  congeniality  of  Tractarianism  with  Rome  has 
been  painfully  manifested  during  the  last  two  years, 
by  a  variety  of  publications ;  but  especially  by  the 


67 

whole  course  of  the  British  Critic,  in  an  open  assault 
upon  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  which  its 
editor  has  boldly  denounced  as  the  Lutheran  heresy; 
— in  frequent  advocacy  of  the  Romish  principle  of  de- 
velopment, of  the  sacramental  power  and  grace  attri- 
buted to  the  external  unity  of  the  Church,  of  auricu- 
lar confession  and  private  absolution  by  the  priest, — 
in  high  praises  of  the  Romish  formularies  of  devotion, 
veneration  for  the  saints,  and  especially  for  the  Virgin 
Mary,  laws  of  clerical  celibacy,  and  monastic  insti- 
tutions,— in  a  plain  preference  for  the  th.eology  and 
practical  piety  of  the  middle  ages, — in  an  injurious^and 
subtle  strain  of  palliation  towards  all  the  superstitions 
of  Rome, — in  an  undisguised  contempt  for  the  charac- 
ters of  our  great  Reformers,  and  in  a  studied  opposi- 
tion to  the  name  and  spirit  of  Protestantism.  Several 
of  those  points  it  was  my  intention  to  have  discussed 
jat  large ;  but  I  am  rejoiced  to  find  that  I  have  been 
superseded  by  other  and  far  abler  hands,  and  there- 
fore I  consider  myself  relieved  from  the  duty  of  pur- 
suing the  painful  subject  any  farther. 

I  cannot  conclude,  however,  in  justice  to  my  own 
feelings,  without  again  recording  my  belief,  that  on 
many  points  of  ecclesiastical  order  and  discipline,  the 
writings  of  my  Tractarian  brethren  have  been  highly 
useful.  Nor  would  I  omit  the  opportunity  of  renew- 
ing my  cordial  acknowledgments  to  such  of  those 
eminently  gifted  men,  especially  Mr.  Newman  him- 
self, whose  personal  intercourse,  when  at  Oxford,  I 
esteemed  as  a  peculiar  privilege,  and  to  whose  liberal 
kindness,  hospitality  and  attention,  I  was,  in  various 
ways,  so  much  indebted.     The  highest  compliment 


68     - 

that  I  can  pay  them  is  to  express  my  conviction,  that 
they  would  be  amongst  the  last  to  suffer  acts  of  cour- 
tesy or  friendship  to  interfere  with  the  conscientious 
expression  of  religious  truth.  "  He  that  loveth 
father  or  mother  more  than  me,"  saith  the  blessed 
Redeemer,  "  is  not  worthy  of  me.''  But  although 
even  the  most  sacred  of  all  personal  relations  may 
not  be  suffered  to  stand  in  the  way  of  our  allegiance 
to  Christ,  and  our  fidelity  to  his  Gospel ;  yet  we  can 
hardly  fail  to  regard  it  as  a  real  affiiction,  when 
admiration  of  the  men  must  be  united  with  hostihty 
to  their  doctrine. 

It  may  be  proper  that  I  should  add  another  remark, 
in  order  to  account  for  the  fact,  that  while  I  have  been 
occupied  with  opposing  some  of  the  errors  of  Tract- 
arianism,  I  have  made  my  chief  quotations,  not  from 
the  Oxford  Tracts,  but  from  Mr.  Palmer's  Treatise 
on  the  Church.  My  reason  is,  because  I  regard  that 
work  as  being  the  most  authoritative  exponent  of  the 
system,  which  is  likely  to  abide,  with  considerable 
influence  and  honor,  long  after  the  Tracts,  and  the 
transient  publications  which  have  grown  out  of  them, 
shall  have  passed  away ;  and  therefore  any  error  of 
principle  or  of  application,  in  a  treatise  so  eminent 
for  its  scholastic  method  and  its  immense  research, 
deserves,  and  indeed  demands,  the  most  thorough 
examination.  I  have  seen,  with  the  liveliest  satis- 
faction, that  this  distinguished  writer  has  himself 
become  a  declared  opponent  to  the  extravagances  of 
the  school  with  which  he  has  been. so  long  identified. 
And  I  earnestly  hope  that  the  next  edition  of  his 
great  work  will  exhibit  the  results  in  such  a  form,  as 
shall  leave  no  further  ground  for  animadversion. 


69 

I  stated,  in  the  first  of  these  Letters,  that  my 
object  was  not  so  much  to  consider  the  whole  Tract- 
arian  controversy,  simply  with  regard  to  its  precise 
measure  of  theological  soundness,  as  to  examine  those 
novelties  which  disturbed  our  oivn  peace.  And  I 
selected  the  points  which  I  thought  most  important 
to  my  object,  under  the  full  conviction,  that  so  long  as 
we  retained  our  established  doctrines  on  the  Sacra- 
ment of  Baptism,  on  the  true  idea  of  the  Church,  on  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  and  on  th«  essential  antagonism  of 
the  Roman  system  as  set  forth  in  the  Council  of  Trent, 
there  would  be  small  danger  of  our  being  led  astray 
on  any  other  topic.  I  have  called  the  Tractarian  sys- 
tem neiu,  not  because  I  was  ignorant  that  it  is  indeed 
very  old,  inasmuch  as  it  is  mainly  taken  from  the 
later  fathers,  as  interpreted  by  the  Church  of  Rome  ; 
nor  yet  because  I  was  not  aware  that  it  may  be  found, 
scattered  here  and  there,  amongst  the  writings  of 
English  divines,  especially  in  those  of  Laud,  Mon- 
tague and  Thorndike,  but  because  it  is  new  in  its 
aggressive,  combined,  Mid,  sustained  character,  even 
in  England,  and  new  in  all  respects  amongst  our- 
selves. No  other  writers  of  our  mother  Church  have 
ever  dared  to  stigmatize  the  Reformers,  to  call  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  a  heresy,  to  attack 
the  epithet  of  Protestant,  to  concede  a  high  supe- 
riority to  Rome,  to  mourn  over  our  separation  from 
her  corrupt  communion,  and  to  display  their  sym- 
pathies with  her  enormous  superstition.  And  the 
indignant  spirit  aroused  against  them,  throughout  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  Church  of  England,  not- 
withstanding the  acknowledged  learning,  and  talent, 


70 

and  personal  worth  of  the  individuals  concerned, 
together  with  the  unparalleled  excitement  which  has 
marked  the  first  instance,  in  which  our  own  Church 
has  had  reason  to  mark  their  influence  in  the  recent 
ordination,  bear  a  testimony,  not  to  be  mistaken  by 
any  candid  mind,  that  small  indeed  is  the  number  on 
either  side  of  the  Atlantic,  who  are  deeply  infected 
by  this  novel  system.  Still,  although  I  had  no  fears 
of  the  ultimate  result, — nay,  although  I  doubted  not 
that  the  whole  would  be  gloriously  over-ruled,  in  the 
gracious  order  of  divine  Providence,  for  the  purifica- 
tion and  advancement  of  the  Church  of  God  in  gene- 
ral, and  of  our  own  branch  of  it  in  particular,  yet  I 
felt  it  incumbent  on  me,  as  one  of  her  bishops,  how- 
ever inferior  to  the  rest,  to  state,  frankly,  on  what 
side  our  dangers  seemed  to  lie,  and  by  what  measures, 
through  the  blessing  of  our  Redeemer,  we  might  be 
most  surely  protected  against  them. 

And  now  that  my  proposed  work  is  done,  I  beg 
leave  to  repeat  my  conviction,  that  we  have  nothing, 
under  God,  to  dread ;  since  I  doubt  not  that  the 
bishops,  the  clergy,  and  especially  the  laity,  will 
arouse  themselves  to  a  careful  and  prayerful  exami- 
nation of  the  whole  merits  of  the  question  \  resolving 
that  so  far  as  in  them  lies,  the  Church  which  was 
restored  to  her  primitive  purity  in  the  flames  of  the 
Reformation,  shall  be  transmitted  to  future  ages, 
without  any  infusion  of  Romanism,  or  deterioration 
of  Scriptural  truth.  If,  in  the  execution  of  my  own 
share  of  the  common  duty,  I  have  in  any  respect 
trespassed  against  the  laws  of  fraternal  affection  or 
of  Christian  courtesy,  I  beg  my  respected  and  beloved 


71 

brethren  to  believe  that  nothing  could  be  farther  from 
my  intention.  It  is  indeed  written  that  Faithful  are 
the  wounds  of  a  friend ;  but  I  have  labored  in  the 
hope  that  my  friendly  eflbrts  could  inflict  no  wound, 
because  I  had  no  errors  to  mention  that  were  not 
notorious  already,  and  none  for  which  I  was  not 
anxious  to  make  the  largest  allowance  in  my  power. 
Abundantly  conscious,  nevertheless,  of  my  own 
manifold  defects,  and  aware,  that  in  suggesting  any 
improvement  in  our  ecclesiastical  polity,  I  have  un- 
dertaken what  is  always  an  invidious  and  unpopular 
task,  I  commit  the  whole  to  your  indulgence,  with 
my  fervent  prayer  to  our  Almighty  Father,  that  the 
defects  of  the  advocate  may  not  lessen  the  influence 
of  truth,  and  that  my  humble  work  may  contribute, 
in  some  degree,  to  promote  the  welfare  of  his  Church, 
and  the  extension  of  his  glory. 

Your  faithful  brother. 

And  servant  in  Christ, 

JOHN  H.  HOPKINS. 

Burlington,  T*t.,  Jan'y.  \9th,  1844. 


% 


t 


^«. 


•* 


Jl 


1 

DATE  DUE 

w»< 

! 

I 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

W^"  si'^^IP 


J""""'""   Theologrcal  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01013  6432 


